[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.