View original postOf course any choice will have been controversial, but this one focuses on one small aspect of a single conflict that's going on right now. No long term peace, no big views. Chemical weapons? Why this focus? Just so politicians can feel right about having Assad sign the treaty? They can sit back, in the full knowledge they did "something" which has been validated by the Nobel Committee, while the civil war, with all the refugees, killings, injuries and other atrocities continue.
Yeah. The IAEA some years ago was similar, but that one made more sense as they had been more involved in things over a longer period of time - and El Baradei certainly had become a household name already.
It's not as foolish a prize as the one for Obama, but still rather uninspired to say the least - and, much like Obama, seems to be intended as an encouragement for achievements to come rather than anything achieved to date, which risks leaving them looking like fools if it goes bad.
View original postAnother thing I'm not happy with: please award it to (a) person(s) next time, who represents a bigger struggle. This is more inspiring to others than choosing an anonymous organization. In this case it's even worse: an anonymous organization most of us have never heard about until the Syrian troubles escalated with a single gas attack. More than the choice of organization, the fact that there is no "real face" we can imagine for the winner hollows out the importance of the prize itself.
I agree. A choice like Mohammed Yunus and the Grameen Bank was a good one - in this case they could and I dare say should have gone with e.g. the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, and Serge Brammertz and his predecessor Carla Del Ponte.
Failing that, there is nothing wrong with choosing someone who doesn't have global fame, but did do great things for peace in some particular country.
View original postMalala would have been perfect in this sense, but I personally would have a different problem with her: it's all too recent. Why not, like with the other Noble prizes, award it years after the fact? See that the effort made sense, improved conditions over the long term. Not "hey, you did something remarkable last year, let's reward it" without seeing the longer term effect. In that sense, seeing the support for Malala and how she continues to inspire people, I would definitely hope for the 2014/2015 Noble peace prize for her.
Still far too early in 2015 - would you really give that prize to a girl who's not even or barely an adult yet? That would be a curse more than a blessing, impeding her to find her way in her adult life (and, one might add, making her even a bigger target than she already is). Mind, I'd have been happier with that choice than with this one, and I do like the message behind that choice, but on the whole the arguments against it are quite strong.
So, another year, another epic fail in the Nobel Peace Prize selection.
- 12/10/2013 05:22:24 AM
667 Views
Not too happy either
- 12/10/2013 10:49:47 AM
525 Views
Still far too early.
- 12/10/2013 04:06:27 PM
562 Views
Next year's Nobel Peace Prize awarded to...
- 13/10/2013 07:52:35 AM
580 Views