[archon1410]

I feel the Nobel prize was less for fighting for women's rights, and more for fighting against an anti-American, anti-Western government. For some reason, I don't see the award ever going to a rights activist fighting against the Saudi, Pakistani, or any other American-allied regimes. I of course don't ever see it going to someone fighting against the American regime itself, and its mass surveillance and war crimes, such as Edward Snowden or Julian Assange, or Chelsea Manning.

[fauigerzigerk]

>For some reason, I don't see the award ever going to a rights activist fighting against the Saudi, Pakistani, or any other American-allied regimes.

There have been a few, such as

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Ressa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigoberta_Mench%C3%BA

[imjonse]

To be fair, Mandela did not get it while imprisoned and while the US and the UK were tacit supporters of the Apartheid regime.

And Maria Ressa seems anti-Duterte, and pro-US if I read correctly.

[dragonwriter]

> To be fair, Mandela did not get it while imprisoned and while the US and the UK were tacit supporters of the Apartheid regime.

To be even more fair, Mandela wasn’t the first anti-apartheid Nobel Peace Prize award, and Albert John Lutuli (awarded 1960) and Archbishop Tutu (awarded 1984) got it for fighting apartheid when the US and UK were tacit (active, of the regime if not the apartheid policy specifically, in 1960) supporters of the apartheid regime (Reagan’s reversal on his “constructive engagement” approach came inmediately after Archbishop Tutu's address to Congress and subsequent meeting with the President after the award.. And Dr. King (awarded 1964) got it for his opposition to the parallel policy in America.

[imjonse]

You are right. Although those recipients were clearly in favor of non-violent fighting for human rights and were not explicitly anti-western or anti-US (the definitions of non-recipients this subthread started with) When Dr King began opposing the Vietnam war instead of simply fighting for equal rights at home he became a larger menace.

[fauigerzigerk]

The definition of non-recipients was never tied to violence. The examples given were Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning, all peaceful activists or journalists.

[imjonse]

Media made sure these three were tied to violence.

[LindeBuzoGray]

Right, Mandela got it when he was being conciliatory to the government and its Western support, with other ANC elements being less so.

The same with Arafat - he was conciliatory to Israel and its western support at Oslo, with Hamas and the PFLP being less so.

Both were not fighting when.they got the prize, but being conciliatory.

[fauigerzigerk]

I don't agree that Arafat was fighting any less than Narges Mohammadi when he got the Nobel Peace Prize. He didn't get the prize for surrendering (neither did Mandela but he got the prize after he had already won).

[fauigerzigerk]

>Mandela did not get it while imprisoned and while the US and the UK were tacit supporters of the Apartheid regime

True

>Maria Ressa seems anti-Duterte, and pro-US if I read correctly

Duterte is/was a Trump style figure in a country that houses U.S military bases. If Pakistan counts then the Philippines must count as well.

[imjonse]

I mean the Philippines is traditionally a US ally, but Duterte both openly criticised the US and tried to get closer to China. And Maria Ressa is definitely not an anti-US or anti-Western activist.

[fauigerzigerk]

>but Duterte both openly criticised the US and tried to get closer to China

Yes he did for a moment before completely reversing course.

https://www.rand.org/blog/2021/11/dutertes-dalliance-with-ch...

Pakistan's various leaders on the other hand have criticised the U.S far more harshly and far more persistently over the years. They have also had close relations with China for decades.

[imjonse]

There are no peace Nobel prizes for such Pakistanis though. Malala got it for figthing for education of young girls. Although I no longer remember how Pakistan got into the discussion and if we're arguing or agreeing :)

[shihab]

You're mistaken about Yasser Arafat. He wasn't awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for fighting Israeli apartheid; rather, he received it for ceasing that fight in line with the Oslo Accords- a deal brokered by the United States.

Here's a visual representation of why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords#/media/File:Bill_...

[fauigerzigerk]

Arafat was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to make peace in the middle east (as were Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin), not for ceasing his political fight or for giving up his ambitions.

He said: "Peace is in our interest: as only in an atmosphere of just peace shall the Palestinian people achieve their legitimate ambition for independence and sovereignty."

Narges Mohammadi's fight is a peaceful one as well.

[shihab]

I do not disagree that this was a peaceful move, I rather disagree that Yasser Arafat is an example of someone getting the peace prize despite acting against American/Western interest.

[fauigerzigerk]

The claim that I responded to was essentially that only opponents of anti-Western regimes ever get the Nobel Peace Price. Arafat is a counter example to that.

Arafat's decision to pursue his goals with political means is neither pro- nor anti-Western/Israeli. It was meant to be pro-Palestinian. Hardliners on both sides hated the idea and unfortunately they have prevailed.

[imjonse]

Lê_Đức_Thọ, who fought the US in Vietnam, got it in 1973 (together with Kissinger) and promptly refused it. Maybe the Nobel committee does not want to be embarrassed by a refusal again, and that is the only reason it no longer awards it to anti-western activists :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%AA_%C4%90%E1%BB%A9c_Th%E1...

[funnyflywheel]

Thanks for the reminder that Heinz (Henry) Kissinger is still alive at age 100.

[sneak]

They gave the Nobel Peace Prize to a US president who had ordered so many drone strikes that even by the US's own admission, hundreds of children were slaughtered.

It's pretty farcical.

[wizerdrobe]

By virtue of the President’s role of Commander in Chief and that Doctor’s Without Borders as an organization has received the prize, it can be said that this President is the first to bomb another Nobel recipient after an attack on a MSF hospital.

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

[zarzavat]

> On 7 October 2015, President Barack Obama issued an apology and announced the United States would be making condolence payments of $6,000 to the families of those killed in the airstrike

Literally adding insult to injury. No wonder the US kills so many foreigners if it only values them at six thousand dollars a piece.

[imjonse]

While literary Nobel prize winners may have their feuds, peace prize winners' disagreements can get much more serious.

[voisin]

Had the drone strikes started when he Obama received the Nobel? It was awarded October 9, 2009, and he had only taken office that January. I recall the drone strikes (possibly incorrectly) being a second term controversy, not a first 9 months controversy.

[psychlops]

Obama did more drone strikes in his first year (563) than Bush did his entire term. I can't find the specific months, but it's unlikely it was all done in the last quarter. He also authorized the first drone strike on an American.

[astrange]

Bush didn't do drone strikes because he was too busy starting wars. The drones were supposed to be a replacement for the war.

[psychlops]

As Bush would say, "Mission Accomplished".

[brookst]

It’s a common misconception that the prize is for being a 100% peaceful person one’s entire life. In fact the award is for making progress on peace in a specific context; it is not meant to certify the recipient has no blood on their hands.

See also: all of the winners whose pasts include revolutionary actions that killed innocents.

[nirav72]

Including a former member of the Waffen-SS.

https://www.dw.com/en/nobel-prize-winner-grass-under-fire-fo...

[0xDEF]

>even by the US's own admission, hundreds of children were slaughtered

Did the US really admit that or was it something that was exposed by NGOs and investigators?

[shmde]

Head of the country Barack Obama literally apologized for bombing the Kunduz hospital ? Will anything change if they admitted to or not ?

[toyg]

As others said, the prize was well before drone strikes were a thing. It was basically honouring the effort to run and win the US presidential election as a black man, something nobody had ever managed to do.

[Luctct]

Because being a black man is what really matters in a presidential election. Got it.

[alickz]

How much it matters depends on many factors

I think you'd be intellectually dishonest saying it wasn't a historical election

[trimethylpurine]

This is because civil rights are a Western ideology. They certainly didn't come from ISIS' views on women. Nor from Russia and China, who supported them.

Snowden defected to Russia, see above about supporting ISIS. Assange and Manning's exposure literally cost the lives of Afghan families who were working against AQ, another regime that openly oppresses its people's civil rights.

I think you might need to have a hard look at what you think peace is.

So far, the most civil rights a person can experience is under Western governance, flawed as it is.

[user3939382]

> Snowden defected to Russia

To add context, Snowden became trapped in Russia when the US State Department decided to cancel his passport while he was at an airport there on the way out of Russia.

> Assange and Manning's exposure literally cost the lives of Afghan families

Exposure like the footage they revealed of US drones killing innocent civilians?

> The U.S. post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, and Pakistan have taken a tremendous human toll on those countries. As of September 2021, an estimated 432,093 civilians in these countries have died violent deaths as a result of the wars.

Right, Assange is the problem, not the US military operations he exposed.

[trimethylpurine]

>Right, Assange is the problem, not the US military operations he exposed.

It's only clear that civilians were intentionally targeted by ISIS and AQ. It's also true that civilians who opposed Western military forces were killed. That's expected, because opposing a military force is an official enlistment.

Assange is the problem. You don't get a peace prize for aiding in civil rights oppression.

[muniq]

The Soviet Union provided more material support against colonialism and apartheid than the United States. Ask Mandela.

[trimethylpurine]

That might be true, but it's largely irrelevant. When SA embraced civil rights, it became Western.

[AnonCoward42]

> This is because civil rights are a Western ideology. They certainly didn't come from ISIS' views on women. Nor from Russia and China, who supported them.

How do you come to the conclusion that Russia and China support ISIS?

[trimethylpurine]

The insurgency was armed with Russian and Chinese equipment that was given to Iraq between 2003 and 2009.

You can read about the Iraqi Insurgency for more information.

But more generally, US, China, Russia have all been fighting/arming proxy wars over there for around 50 years.

[AnonCoward42]

They "use the equipment" and actual support are not the same. Did they arm ISIS directly or did the weapons end up there a different way?

> But more generally, US, China, Russia have all been fighting/arming proxy wars over there for around 50 years.

But supporting terrorist groups is not something Russia nor China does on this level.

[trimethylpurine]

Yes, they armed them directly.

Yes they supported terrorist groups. As did the US. No one is innocent. But the US has always supported democracy and civil rights. That includes civil rights activism deemed "terrorist" by China and Russia.

The West represents civil rights. That's just as fact. Ask yourself, are people enjoying civil rights in China or Russia living with a quality of life far below Western nations? Obviously not.

[AnonCoward42]

> Yes, they armed them directly.

Of course I want a source for that.

> Yes they supported terrorist groups. As did the US. No one is innocent.

How are "we" supposed to be better then?

> But the US has always supported democracy and civil rights. That includes civil rights activism deemed "terrorist" by China and Russia.

Al Qaida, Al Nusra, Taliban etc are civil rights activits for the US (sold as "moderate rebels" in Syria by German media at least). Of course they are deemed terrorists in other countries. I find the civil right activism of the US questionable to say the least.

> Ask yourself, are people enjoying civil rights in China or Russia living with a quality of life far below Western nations?

I ask myself if I do enjoy civil rights if I hold dissident opinions in western countries. Am I supposed to feel better that it is supposedly worse in other countries, while it's obvious that we target 3rd world country standards for human rights?

[bnralt]

ElBaradei won in 2005, when he was a vocal opponent of Bush's military interventions (Obama's prize in 2009 was likewise mainly a rebuke of Bush).

Tawakkol Karman (2011) has been a vocal critic of Saudi Arabia.

Willy Brandt received his prize specifically for increasing ties with the Eastern Bloc.

In terms of prizes giving for those working against particular regimes, anti-apartheid activists have received the most (1960, 1984, 1993).

A lot of people end up making assumptions based on their own personal biases.

[muniq]

Gandhi - whose name has become synonymous with peace and non-violence - was nominated 3 times but didn't win.

The evidence strongly suggests that the Nobel committee doesn't like giving the prize against anti-western dissidents until they absolutely have to, i.e. when not giving the prize would raise more eyebrows and damage the Nobel's reputation. The two anti-western dissidents that come to mind are Nelson Mandela and (arguably) Martin Luther King. Again, they received the prize after achieving global fame and recognition.

ElBaradei won the prize for his work in the IAEA (whose primary focus has been on non-western nations) -not for his opposition to the Iraq war - whose primary focus has been on non-western nations.

Tawakkol Karman (2011) is another dissident against a non-western country.

Willy Brandt wasn't a dissident of the West. Far from it in fact - known for fierce anti-communist domestic policies , support for right-wing governments, the Vietnam war and for promoting greater European and western integration.

Nobel prizes given to anti-apartheid South African activists seem to be a laudable counter-example to the rule though.

[bnralt]

> The two anti-western dissidents that come to mind are Nelson Mandela and (arguably) Martin Luther King. Again, they received the prize after achieving global fame and recognition.

Seems like a “no true Scotsman” argument. Naturally, the winners are going to often be prominent individuals.

> Tawakkol Karman (2011) is another dissident against a non-western country.

The previous poster specifically said “I don't see the award ever going to a rights activist fighting against the Saudi, Pakistani, or any other American-allied regimes,” so I brought up a recent activist that has been against the Saudi government (and I guess Malala Yousafzai could be viewed as critical of many parts of the Pakistani government).

> ElBaradei won the prize for his work in the IAEA (whose primary focus has been on non-western nations) -not for his opposition to the Iraq war - whose primary focus has been on non-western nations.

It was pretty obvious to everyone at the time that this (as well as Obama’s prize) was a direct rebuke against Bush’s foreign policy. Here’s the opening paragraph of the New York Times article about his award[1]:

> The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded Friday to the International Atomic Energy Agency and its chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, whom the Bush administration tried but failed to remove from his job just months ago.

> The award was a vindication of a man and an agency long at odds with President Bush and his administration over how to confront Iraq and Iran. It could strengthen the agency's position as conflicts loom over preventing Iran from obtaining fuel it could use for nuclear weapons and disarming North Korea.

> For most of the last year, the Bush administration had tried to block Dr. ElBaradei from assuming a third term as chief of the agency, a part of the United Nations, arguing that he would not be strong enough to face down Iran and the covert nuclear weapons program it is suspected of having. But the United States had no support from any of its allies, and ultimately had to withdraw its objections to Dr. ElBaradei's reappointment.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/08/front%20page/world/atomic...

[muniq]

> Seems like a “no true Scotsman” argument. Naturally, the winners are going to often be prominent individuals.

I would argue that the majority of recent Peace Laureates (including this years) became internationally prominent after winning the prize. Did you know of Narges Mohammadi before this announcement?

> The previous poster specifically said “I don't see the award ever going to a rights activist fighting against the Saudi, Pakistani, or any other American-allied regimes,”

I really wasn't defending the OP's assertion. In fact, I don't agree with it at all. These are largely transactional western alliances. While the Nobel Committee might want to avoid a confrontation with Saudi Arabia, I doubt it has too many qualms about awarding prizes to dissidents from Pakistan. You already mentioned Yousafzai. My point was really that the Nobel Prize is rarely awarded to western dissidents (including journalists or activists) and is almost exclusively awarded to dissidents in non-western countries.

> For most of the last year, the Bush administration had tried to block Dr. ElBaradei from assuming a third term as chief of the agency, a part of the United Nations, arguing that he would not be strong enough to face down Iran and the covert nuclear weapons program it is suspected of having. But the United States had no support from any of its allies, and ultimately had to withdraw its objections to Dr. ElBaradei's reappointment.

Your post already has my rebuttal. The United States was the sole objector to ElBaradei's appointment- with the rest of the west and in-fact the rest of the world backing him. The Iraq War was universally unpopular by 2005 ( with a case of mass amnesia by supporters from pre-2003) Hardly a controversial choice.

[tonmoy]

There have been some “anti-western” Nobel peace prize awards in the recent past. I think Saudi Arab was not happy about 2011 Nobel peace prize winner for example. While Snowden and Assange have done great things, they are not exactly in line with the human rights activism type activities rewarded by the committee.

[mc32]

The peace prize should be about people who promote peace or bring about peace.

Snowden exposed civil rights violations and constitutional violations but I wouldn’t say it contributed to the avoidance of war or conflict.

This should not be about “activism” but about political stabilization and the promotion of peace.

[alephnerd]

> more for fighting against an anti-American, anti-Western government

"[t]he recipient is selected by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, a five-member committee appointed by the Parliament of Norway. Since 2020 the prize is awarded in the Atrium of the University of Oslo" [0]

The winners are basically selected by a subset of retired Norwegian MPs, and even Alfred Nobel's living heir has become opposed to the politicization of the Nobel Peace Price [1]. So it's reflecting the values of a subset of the Norwegian elite

The comment above should NOT be viewed as a rejection of Narges Mohammadi's work.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize

[1] - https://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/i/wP6y1/i-strid-med-nobe...

[csmpltn]

The Nobel prize is awarded by a committee of (largely) Judeo-Christian westerners, in a western country.

Equivalent awards given out by dictatorships or theocracies around the world can be just as easily seen through the same lens of hypocrisy and cynicism.

[wslh]

I am courious: could you name the committee members? [1] I am sure they are westerners, not clear about if the "Judeo-Christian" claim is very precise [0]

Obviously there is a bias in the awards, but is there a way to not be biased? Also, there is space to create better Nobel prizes for sure so blaming Nobel prize is in a way linked to the world incapacity to promote something better?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian?wprov=sfti1

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Nobel_Committee?wpro...

[alephnerd]

> Judeo-Christian westerners, in a western country

No. Only a handful of elite Norwegians, as the committee is 5 former MPs selected by the Norwegian parliament.

Apartheid South Africa's leaders were Judeo-Christian westerners as well, but the award was given to their foe Nelson Mandela

[krmboya]

Can the West still be characterized as Judeo-christian? Western culture seems largely liberal at this point with the more religious people being lumped to the right wing.

It is said many churches/cathedrals in Europe are now appreciated more for their historical value than as places of worship

[throw4847285]

The word Judeo-Christian is often used to refer to exactly that kind of secularized Christian morality which undergirds the post-Enlightenment west. It became popular as a means to combat anti-Semitism in America, by arguing that Jews and Christians (and nobody else) shared some kind of common moral framework which so happens to be what the United States was built on.

The problem is, if you asked Jews 200 years prior about "Judeo-Christian values" they would have laughed you out of the ghetto. It's solely the product of an assimilating Jewish population trying to make a claim to American identity, like Italian Americans and Columbus Day. It's also totally entangled in debates about Zionism, as Judeo-Christian comes to mean "Abrahamic but not Muslim." Actually, you hear Abrahamic get used more often as Muslims in America stake a similar claim to America.

[eunos]

*Swedish

Much more specific

[sahlab]

The Nobel peace prize is awarded by a Norwegian committee.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Nobel_Committee

[astura]

No, The Peace prize, specifically, is awarded by the The Norwegian Nobel Committee in Oslo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Nobel_Committee

[nine_k]

I wonder.why a Peace Prize should ever go to anyone for fighting, even if the fighting is for a patently just cause. There should be a different prize, or at least a different name for it.

But this ship has sailed, apparently.

OTOH it's really understandable that many people value fighting for a just cause higher than peace. The easiest way to peace is often to just surrender, and have peace on the terms of an evil aggressor. But it's not a kind of peace many people prefer to live in.

[AnimalMuppet]

"The Nobel Prize For Doing Nothing In The Face Of An Oppressor And Calling That Peace" has far too many candidates for them to be able to pick a winner.

[nine_k]

Indeed.

I'd say that the way Dalai Lama or MLK or even Mahatma Gandhi fought for their causes is rather different from the way Nelson Mandela or Abraham Lincoln fought for their causes. In either case, the cause was just and noble, and sometimes even the same.

[sim7c00]

you are right. people fight for peace, fight for freedom, whatever. People do not understand what is peace. There is only very few places in the world (1 where I know of, by chance) that actually study, what is peace. culture of peace. Peace is known not to be simply the absence of war, and so, trying to remove war isn't neccesarily moving towards peace or a culture of peace, while many things which do not remove violence, can still be considered contributions (very great ones) to peace.

imho the nobel peace prize should take into account what is peace, not just focus on the absence of war. this is an outdated idea. Polemology vs. Irenology.

There are so many people contributing greatly to peace who are invisible. only the ones 'fighting against war' are made visible. and with those, like other commentors suggest, its often simply an opinion. one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, and one mans soldier is anothers terrorist... they are all fighting, killing or destroying (destruction can be non-physical here). it should atleast be a nobel anti-war prize or something. not a peace prize. it doesn't do justice to the many people contributing actively to a culture of peace in one way or another.

[csmpltn]

> "There is only very few places in the world (1 where I know of, by chance) that actually study, what is peace"

Where would that be?

[dragonwriter]

> For some reason, I don't see the award ever going to a rights activist fighting against the Saudi, Pakistani, or any other American-allied regimes

Rigoberta Menchú (awarded 1992) was an activist against the abuses of US allied regime, which abuses were aligned with and arguably a manifestation of US geopolitical priorities, and the Rev. Dr. King (awarded 1964) was an activist against the abuses of the American regime itself.

[bluish29]

My favorite Nobel peace prize goes to Abiy Ahmed who was awarded 2019 prize. He went to Sweden took the prize, deliver a speech then a couple of months later he went on a streak of atrocious in Ethiopia [1]. You name it ( mass killing, rape, genocide..etc).

Also take into consideration that any head of state, prime minister or cabinet member in any government can nominate people for the prize (A lot of other people can do that too)[2] . So it would be always interesting to know who our governments officials nominated over time

[1] https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2023/07/09/...

[2] https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/

[alephnerd]

> He went to Sweden took the prize

Norway

> So it would be always interesting to know who our governments officials nominated over time

There's a list of nominees [0].

The Pakistani Senate nominated Erdogan for this year's prize, for example [0].

That said, most nominations seem to be done by Norwegian MPs trying to message to their own constituents (eg. Abiy's nomination and the large Ethiopian diaspora voting bloc in Norway and Sweden) [1]

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Nobel_Peace_Prize

[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/15/world/africa/ethiopia-abi...

[sorenjan]

The peace prize is awarded in Norway.

[rsynnott]

> I of course don't ever see it going to someone fighting against the American regime itself

Martin Luther King Jr got one.

[lettergram]

To be fair, Obama was granted a Nobel peace prize almost as soon as he got in office (just for being in office)… it was also right before continuing the drone assassination campaign, including the extra judicial killing of US citizens without trial

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Aw...

I’ve always views the Nobel peace prize as a political body. Designed to highlight and reward people of a certain persuasion.

[csomar]

The Nobel peace prize is a joke. I think, at this point, everyone knows that. They should have called it something else, so not to devalue the other Nobel prizes. But then it'd not be as catchy.

[LindeBuzoGray]

Also Iran in 1953 had a prime Minister Mosaddegh, who wanted to nationalize Iran's oil. The UK (and US) sought the support of right-wing mullahs, then overthrew the prime minister and replaced him with a dictator. Then the CIA helped SAVAK kill off the secular left for the next few decades. Eventually even the right-wing clerics and bazaari grew tired of foreign interference and threw the western powers out.

[bnralt]

> Also Iran in 1953 had a prime Minister Mosaddegh, who wanted to nationalize Iran's oil.

Iranian oil was nationalized; in 1951 the National Iranian Oil Company took control, and retained it even after Mossadegh’s ouster (even up to today).

> The UK (and US) sought the support of right-wing mullahs, then overthrew the prime minister and replaced him with a dictator.

First, by this point in time Mossadegh had dissolved parliament and was ruling by fiat based on a rigged plebiscite (he claimed that 99.9% of Iranians had voted to give him control of the country[1]). Second, he wasn’t replaced with a dictator. The Shah had been in power since the Soviet Union and the U.K. had forced his father to abdicate over a decade before, and had been in a power struggle with the Majlis for quite some time by that point.

> Eventually even the right-wing clerics and bazaari grew tired of foreign interference and threw the western powers out.

The Shah was (mostly) friendly with the West, but he was hardly a puppet. He was the one who got OPEC to double their prices during the 1973 oil crisis, which hit the West pretty hard. Here's how PBS put it[2]:

> The final blow came in December when the Shah of Iran, ostensibly a U.S. ally, took advantage of American impotence and persuaded the rest of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to more than double the price of a barrel of oil from $5.11 to $11.65.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1953/08/04/archives/mossadegh-gets-9... [2] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2012/06...

[LindeBuzoGray]

> Iranian oil was nationalized; in 1951 the National Iranian Oil Company took control, and retained it even after Mossadegh’s ouster (even up to today).

Control of oil sales reverted back to British Petroleum (and the Seven Sisters) after the US/UK ousted Iran's prime Minister with Operation Ajax. Not all of Mosaddegh's changes were undone as it would gave destabilized the Shah.

> Second, he wasn’t replaced with a dictator. The Shah had been in power

The Prime Minister ran the government like a modern western government, the Shah was a figurehead. What you're saying is the US and UK wanted to remove the modern parliament to revert to an older, anti-democraric, conservative, traditional government. Which is what happened, and now the Swedes and westerners are whining about the traditionalism the west foisted on Iran, now that it is no longer western aligned.

Aside from mullahs and the dictator, the CIA gave money to criminal elements in Iran to help regain western control.

The Shah was a figurehead and left for Italy. He did not want to run Iran or even go back but was convinced to by westerners. He flew back to Iran with Allen Dulles.

> had forced his father to advocated over a decade before

Forced his father to advocate? Advocate for what?

[bnralt]

> The Prime Minister ran the government like a modern western government, the Shah was a figurehead.

This is simply false. If you want an example, look at the 1949 Iranian constitutional assembly where the Shah was able to successfully change the Iranian constitution to increase his political power. A lot of people are only interested in the U.S. involvement in ousting Mossadegh 1953, and frankly don’t seem to understand (or seem interested in understanding) anything else that was happening in the country at the time.

> Forced his father to advocate? Advocate for what?

Sorry, that should have read "abdicate."

> What you're saying is the US and UK wanted to remove the modern parliament to revert to an older, anti-democraric, conservative, traditional government.

No, the Majlis had been dissolved by Mossadegh after they threatened to oust him, and then he used a rigged plebiscite to take full control of the country[1]:

> The Iranian Majlis, the lower house of Parliament, which last month threatened to oust Premier Mohammed Mossadegh with votes of no confidence, was declared today to have been dissolved as the result of the referendum completed this week, in which 99.94 per cent of the voters using non-secret ballots took the Premier's side in his quarrels with the chamber.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1953/08/16/archives/mossadegh-terms-...

[tibbydudeza]

Or Chile where they overthrew an elected communist govt and they got Pinochet and the disappeared.

But I am grateful for them helping Ukraine even if it for their own geopolitical goals.

[Luctct]

Allende was destroying Chile. The Chilean military had the good sense of putting an end to it.

[tibbydudeza]

But he was elected good or bad policies it was up to the voters to decide - the CIA/US supported coup bought in a military dictator who had people dropped into the sea and lakes from aircraft.

How about the mothers still today protesting about their sons/daughters who disappeared (1,248).

[Theodores]

If I remember correctly, Saudi Arabia and Iran struck a peace deal this year, brokered with Chinese help. We haven't heard about Yemen since.

Surely Xi Jinping, MBS and Khamenei deserve the award for actual peace?

Yeah, that is three people we are told to hate. But they achieved actual peace.

Instead we get this Iranian woman that nobody had heard of before today.

Something is not right.

[alephnerd]

> Saudi Arabia and Iran struck a peace deal this year, brokered with Chinese help.

It wasn't a peace deal - it was a normalization of relations (aka they've reestablished diplomatic contact) [0]. Iranian and Saudi proxies are still killing each other in Syria and Iraq.

> We haven't heard about Yemen since.

That's because of Oman acting as a mediator between the Houthis and Saudis [1]

[0] - https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/06/12/saudi-iran-rapprochemen...

[1] - https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/war-yem...

[bohadi]

ye prestige award is a political football now. same as it ever was?

[77pt77]

My personal favorite is still Henry Kissinger, alive and well at 100 years old.

[g232089]

That the Nobel Peace Prize is not a serious award should have been evident when Obama won it.

[cdogl]

“When Kissinger won the Nobel peace prize, satire died” - Tom Lehrer, long ago

[willcipriano]

2 wars when he was sworn in, 7 when he left. I'm pretty sure he is the peace prize recipient who started the most wars.

[perihelions]

- "I'm pretty sure he is the peace prize recipient who started the most wars"

Henry Kissinger, 1973?

edit: I think Wilson (1919 Nobel; 1913-1921 presidency) is also a contender, if anyone has the patience/stamina to count all his conflicts and classify them. (I.e. what counts as "starting a war" and what's better described as a continuation of an existing conflict).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Woodrow_Wilson#F...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars

[srean]

I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize -- Steven Wright

[willcipriano]

If we go off the war crimes outlined in Hitchen's "The Trial of Henry Kissinger"

> Hitchens presents Kissinger's involvement in a series of alleged war crimes in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Bangladesh, Chile, Cyprus and East Timor.

They are tied for the record for number of nations they committed war crimes in. Although if you include CIA backed coups I think Obama pulls ahead.

[catlover76]

At the risk of further encouraging you to think that there is validity to anything you regurgitate, what do you think were the "7 wars"? And how did Obama "start" them?

[pastor_bob]

>Edward Snowden

You mean the guy who has sworn allegiance to Putin and takes an anti-Ukraine stance on Twitter to save his neck? A guy who has made millions peddling 'his story' and lives a life of luxury in Moscow? Yeah, surely he should get a Nobel prize