Not entirely true. First of all the Nobel Foundation is completely independent of the Nobel family and has been since the start. Secondly while the Committee that decides who gets the peace prize is technically independent of the Norwegian government, it is appointed by the Norwegian government and many of its members have always been former Norwegian politicians (a former prime mister of Norway, for example, sat on the committee that gave the prize to Liu Xiaobo).
In China, lot's of people who originally supported 刘晓波[0] shuts up after Obama's winning.
So, yes, at least in China, Nobel Peace Prize is nothing now.
I don't think Obama is a particularly good or bad man, I think he's just a good politician who went in there and did "what he was supposed to do." Stupid and evil wars existed before and after him. He didn't do anything to fix it, but he didn't start it either. The President doesn't have as much power as we may believe.
With these "wars" in particular he actually does have a great deal of power. They aren't actually wars but "military actions" for the most part. The commander in chief can unilaterally order the armed forced to withdraw if he so wished. Instead Obama ordered drone strike after drone strike, bombing after bombing (so many in fact that there was serious concerns that we would run out of bombs[0]). His merits as a president can be debated, his merits as a peace prize winner cannot. He simply did very little to promote peace and much to prevent it (see Syria).
[0]http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/politics/air-force-20000-bombs...
Far as I can remember, at that time (Around 2009, 20 years after Tiananmen event), there are some people says Liu Xiaobo should be awarded with the peace prize for against CCP's dictatorship.
Some people event had a debate about it. Some say Liu is a hero for democratize China, others say he's wants China to be invaded and controlled by ... may be the US?
That debate later end with Obama's prize.
I'm not saying Obama is bad or anything though. It's not appropriate for an outsider to comment your president.
Why not?
If somebody didn't contribute to your country, how can he/she has right to criticize people who do?
If you mean right in a moral sense, I guess my question still is: Why not?
If you are negatively affected by the actions of a leader of a foreign country ... why should you not have a right to criticize that?
If you have some constructive criticism as to how the leader of a foreign country is doing their job badly and how they could to it better ... what would be the use of not saying so out loud? Couldn't that possibly even be a contribution to their country?
I really don't see why having contributed to something would have anything to do with whether you should criticize it or not?! I can see how maybe you don't get a direct say in who gets to be the leader, but that's quite different from criticizing them, isn't it? I haven't contributed to Equifax either, but I still don't see why I shouldn't criticize their leadership?! Or should I? Why? Why not? And how is a country fundamentally different from a company in that regard?
For me, I just don't comment something I don't understand, I'm not living in the US, so I can't feel what Obama's doing.
Because of that, how can I make a comment that is appropriate? I can't even make a comment that's accurate (Judging by those late night shows I watched on Youtube).
Now about tax, I think it's actually you paid your government to do what they want. When they did something wrong / you don't like it, of course you can complain about it.
But as a foreigner however, if the US government did some negative thing on us, the most effective way I think is to blame our government for letting it to happen.
BTW: Of course, in China we have anit-US (Or Japan etc) prides from time to time, just I'm not a fan of it.
This is what all the dictators say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Court_of_Arbitration
It gave the impression that China is defying the UN, not saying that China wouldn't do something like that, but they didn't in this instance.
And because it is a court of arbitration, both sides have to agree to have their dispute resolved by arbitration in the first place. China did not agree to it.
You're right that they _would_ do something like that! ;) In fact, they did in this case. I'll explain below.
>And because it is a court of arbitration, both sides have to agree to have their dispute resolved by arbitration in the first place. China did not agree to it.
Not quite. China has ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) [0], which designates the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague [1] as the default means of dispute resolution between parties. China knew this going in, and agreed to it when they signed the treaty. This court ruled against China on the matter of the Nine-Dash Line [2]. By defying the court's ruling, they defy the UNCLOS, and thus the UN.
You're technically right that in the case of the Nine-Dash Line, China did not agree to participate in arbitration. However, arbitration was allowed to proceed without their cooperation according to the rules of the UNCLOS, which China had already signed. Treaty law doesn't only apply when it's convenient.
[0] https://pca-cpa.org/en/services/arbitration-services/unclos/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Court_of_Arbitration... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-Dash_Line#Arbitral_tribun...
> China knew this going in, and agreed to it when they signed the treaty.
China signed it but they didn't agree to compulsory arbitration. They made declaration to that effect, along with a number of countries.
https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/conventio...
The Permanent Court of Arbitration has written their own argument for jurisdiction [0]. Having flipped through it, I don't have the legal background to form a strong opinion in light of China's declaration.
I'd lean towards "don't build on reefs in another country's Exclusive Economic Zone," but I'm neither a court nor plaintiff with standing :)
For example, in the early 1990's, just before the First Gulf War, Yemen cast a UN vote against the resolution to invade Iraq. But, Yemen paid a hefty price after the US, Saudi Arabia and other allies retaliated:
A member of the U.S. delegation candidly told the Yemeni ambassador that it was “the most expensive vote you ever cast,” and indeed it was, and might even play a part in the chaos there today. Not only did Washington cut off its $70 million foreign aid program, but the Saudis also abandoned their long-standing treaty with Yemen which allowed its nationals preferential treatment as immigrant workers. The Kingdom and the Gulf states brusquely repatriated a million or so Yemenis, whose missing remittances over the past two decades have contributed to the poverty and underdevelopment of the state.
https://www.wrmea.org/2010-march/united-nations-report-a-cos...
EDIT: also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Counci...
That was my point exactly. If you're the top dog, you can do this kind of stuff and get away with it. What the future holds, with an ascendant China, is that they will continue to put this kind of pressure on other countries and we will be unable to counter it so it will work against us.
Up till now, Western countries have been able to do "this kind of stuff and get away with it". Now, a non-Western country is able to do this stuff to "Western countries", and get away with it.
So naturally, denizens of said "Western countries" will be aghast, upset, indignant (pick your emotion).
While denizens of, well, the rest of the world, might well be laughing their asses off.
They'll just be terrified. For good reason.
This list probably soon will include Pakistan, Afghanistan, and essentially all Southwestern Asiatic countries. Hell, someone might look at a map of China from before Ww1 or so, look at it now, look again saying "wtf", and decide that these people obviously want to conquer a LOT. At which point it'll be China vs the world. And, historically, China has started such conflicts, they're just not very important for western history because the west really wasn't very important for most of history. China eventually lost those conflicts, but not without inflicting massive damage. First to a lot of other countries, then more and more to themselves.
Oh and lest I forget, if you want human rights ... You should be very apprehensive about China. Giving in to western demands has in most cases led to massive improvements in the lot of the average person. China is ... different.
Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Pak-China relations would really be laughing their ass of at this. I won't even bother to correct you there.
> At which point it'll be China vs the world. And, historically, China has started such conflicts,
Aha, spoken like someone desperate to convince others that the big bad Chinaman is really out to get them.
China has issues with its immediate neighbours. And I'm not here to make any claims pro or anti China on those. In many ways, its a consequence of having a large country, surrounded by others - all of whom have a history where they can point to themselves being victimised by the others (while each side conveniently forgets when they were the ones doing the victimisation)
> Oh and lest I forget, if you want human rights ...
What? If I want human rights I should listen to the side which murders civilians across the globe, via drones and trigger-happy killers sitting in a cubicle with a joystick?
Or the one which kidnaps civilians around the world, throws them into various torture centers, and when done, usually dumps them in an offshore gulag in Cuba?
Oops, thats all from the same side.
Seriously, that old argument of "listen to the West, we know whats best for your human rights" really doesn't swallow easily outside of, well, the West.
> You should be very apprehensive about China
Sure. As apprehensive as we should be about, err, you lot.
Fair enough?
India will systematically rise in economic importance from this point forward. China's reasons to make a deal with India are multiplying every day.
The rest of your post is nothing more than moral absolutism. It is wrong.
Hmm, did you just read some of Orson Card's books and started believing that you are the Hegemon or something?
Have you communicated your proclamation/prediction to the Chinese, so that they know what to do in the near future, to avoid you having egg on your face?
> The rest of your post is nothing more than moral absolutism.
Torture is torture. Kidnapping is kidnapping. Deliberately targeting and killing civilians is murder. Campaigns of mass bombing of civilian targets (without any declaration of war on said localities) is terrorism, whether its done by those in uniform or not, or whether its done from the ground or the air.
Thats not "moral absolutism" taken to an extreme.
Its what you're left with when you strip away the whiny excuses, coverups and propaganda (from all sides), and just at look at things for what they are.
The term for that is not "moral absolutism", its "common sense".
> It is wrong.
Read the above, grab a mirror, go find a quiet corner, sit down, and take a good long hard look at yourself.
(and if you are going to reply, please spare us all the amateur philosophy-for-dummies garbage. Thanks much!)
> Torture is torture. Kidnapping is kidnapping. Deliberately targeting and killing civilians is murder. Campaigns of mass bombing of civilian targets (without any declaration of war on said localities) is terrorism, whether its done by those in uniform or not, or whether its done from the ground or the air.
It's funny how you debase moral absolutism, then proceed to give an absolutist opinion. You do not know the meaning of the words you use in an argument ...
The really, really bad part about your argument is that it is only leveled against one side, with no recourse. This has exactly one result: any side that listens to moral absolutism has a serious disadvantage, giving sides that don't (who are likely much worse), an advantage. In practice you might not know that, but everyone in washington does, and if they make this argument, they are merely trying to get the US to abandon some fight, usually abandoning scores of people to a much worse fate, and much worse moral actors. For example, China.
This is where the argument falls down. When following through your argument, we get to the point: because India is far (FAR) from perfect in the moral department, we should not care if China wins and Indian people are subjected to the systematic extermination they suffered under Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Chinese rule.
Can I just say ... No we shouldn't. And frankly, if we have to bomb or even nuke a town containing many children into the ground, that action might be justified. Obviously such decisions shouldn't be made quickly or easily, but excluding them is ... just not how the world works. Most western Europeans don't begrudge the US and UK's firebombing of many European capitals, despite how it has affected their families. And only God knows how many children that killed. Total number of victims of the military actions, incidentally, far exceeds the numbers of the holocaust. So, perhaps, and despite how cruel it sounds, focusing on the war itself rather than helping camp victims was probably the right decision.
Here's some examples of moral relativism:
Given parties A and B, who are in conflict. Who is morally superior ?
Example: Kemal Ataturk. He was a racist massacring his way across small Asia. He destroyed what remained of the rule of law in most of Africa. He killed children en-masse for racist reasons, among a list of other crimes that is too numerous to list. He was also, by far, the moral superior of the muslim caliph he defeated. By about a factor 5, or 6, only counting civilians.
Or we can name the less desirable qualities of Winston Churchill. He is a man of the sort of character that would send men, with orders to kill indiscriminately, into a hopeless battle. Why ? He banally evil. He was a moron. 30 minutes of research would have told him the situation, but he, quite literally, couldn't be bothered. He also thought that they didn't deserve provisions if it meant his cigarettes might be late. After all, what are a few thousand dead compared to having to do ~2 days without a smoke ready ? And yet, I very much appreciate what he (eventually) helped to achieve.
You can see the difference between relativism and absolutism now, I hope ?
I hope you can also understand how, in a real and very much non-imaginary world with limited choices, how moral relativism is by far the superior alternative ?
Oh yes, I do. I'm not the fool trying to take some half-baked understanding of ethics-101, and apply it to some quarter-baked knowledge of basic history. Thats you. Keep me out of it.
(ignoring paragraphs of drivel, where you're under the mistaken illusion that you're somehow engaging in a high-minded conceptual dicussion avec moi)
Here's the problem you're not getting. From where I'm sitting, you come across as a nitwit with a very very poor knowledge of basic history, and an over-inflated opinion of his own "future projections".
That alone makes it hard to take you seriously. Along with your championing of terrorism and nuclear weapons.
Now, when you combine that with your eagerness to mix in philosophy, and start lecturing - while still showing many gaps in your own logic and understanding of said terms.
The effect is comedic.
Unfortunately, the strong whiff of anti-Muslim bigotry which seems to poke its ugly head from your delusional writings is less comedic.
Case in point: Kemal Ataturk, who was part of the Young Turks movement that effectively lead Turkey through WW1, Armenian genocide and all - was somehow the moral superior of the Muslim Caliph he "defeated"? (err, when was that?) No doubt, this is all from some made up alternative history you're living in?
In short, you're a kook. And quite probably a bigoted one too, at that (just surmising). Yes you have a keyboard, and an ISP willing to let you loose. But no, that doesn't make you any less irrelevant than you probably are in real life.
Whatever your ailments, suffer them in silence. Don't involve me.
The nobel committee is set by the norwegian parliament.
"The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a committee of five, appointed by the Storting (the Norwegian parliament)."
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/prize_awarder/...
And the nobel prizes ( particularly in peace ) has been used by the norwegian government to advance political causes. A prime example being obama being awarded the nobel peace prize before he did anything as president.
Regardless of your views on china, the nobel peace prize is a political prize.
1) China suspended normal diplomatic relations with Norway, tossed out a free trade agreement, largely shut down fishing imports from the country and made it far more difficult for Norwegians to get visas to travel study or work in China. All of this was because of an activist being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, which is process controlled a foundation, not directly by the Norwegian government.
2) It took six years for Norway to get normal relations back. After many failed attempts, what they finally had to do was jointly acknowledge the One China Principle and China's core interests and territorial integrity. Beyond Taiwan, this clearly includes the China’s "nine dash line" claims in South China Sea, which was ruled illegal by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague last summer.
There's also various content about interfering with Dalai Lama visits and other topics that are pretty familiar to most Europeans.
Update: correction about the Nobel Peace prize thanks to dagw's feedback.