There have been a few, such as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela
And Maria Ressa seems anti-Duterte, and pro-US if I read correctly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Here's a visual representation of why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords#/media/File:Bill_...
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.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%AA_%C4%90%E1%BB%A9c_Th%E1...
It's pretty farcical.
Did the US really admit that or was it something that was exposed by NGOs and investigators?
Literally adding insult to injury. No wonder the US kills so many foreigners if it only values them at six thousand dollars a piece.
I think you'd be intellectually dishonest saying it wasn't a historical election
See also: all of the winners whose pasts include revolutionary actions that killed innocents.
https://www.dw.com/en/nobel-prize-winner-grass-under-fire-fo...
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.
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.
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.
How do you come to the conclusion that Russia and China support ISIS?
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.
> 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.
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.
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?
This makes me feel like you didn't read my replies. If you read even a little bit about the Iraqi Insurgency you wouldn't be asking for a source. It's on Wikipedia, a bunch of sources at the bottom. It's on other encyclopedia pages. Plenty of articles. Etc. I don't believe that you didn't find it.
>How are "we" supposed to be better then?
Who said anything about being better? I said the US has always supported civil rights. When the US helped AQ it was under the premise that they would support civil rights. When they didn't, the West labeled them terrorists.
>I find the civil right activism of the US questionable to say the least.
I see, but ISIS and AQ are deserving of awards in that department? That's laughable. These are groups that televise beheadings, and treat women worse than the West treats animals. And this is glamorized. Is anti civil rights behavior glamorized in the US? Of course not. The very definition of civil rights is at odds with non Western society. And that's true whether or not you believe that the US is committing acts outside those values. The point is, if it's done, then it's done in secret, which is at the least preventing its promotion in society.
>Am I supposed to feel better that it is supposedly worse in other countries...
Obviously. Less worse = better. Why would you want it to be worse? What did you mean by "supposedly?" Are you trying to sell me that AQ and ISIS treat women better than the US government treats its citizens? That's ridiculous. Does the US stone women for adultery? Jail women for showing their body? Amputate limbs for theft? You can't be seriously pushing for that to be called civil rights. Those are blatantly in opposition of civil rights. Those 100% are anti Western ideals.
Hitchen's Razor; argument dismissed.
> Who said anything about being better? I said the US has always supported civil rights.
You implied it and you are doing it in your last paragraph again.
> Are you trying to sell me that AQ and ISIS treat women better than the US government treats its citizens? [...]
I am trying to say that you are hanging the bar so low, that you can get away with 3rd world standards (for civil rights). With your question series you are just describing islamic countries and not all 3rd world countries are islamic.
> Those are blatantly in opposition of civil rights. Those 100% are anti Western ideals.
Motte-and-bailey for civil rights and you again try to sell me that we are better. The west is not better and we should stop meddling in internal affairs of foreign countries. I can't blame them for anti-western sentiment.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
"[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...
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.
Much more specific
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...
It is said many churches/cathedrals in Europe are now appreciated more for their historical value than as places of worship
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.
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
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.
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.
Where would that be?
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.
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.
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/...
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...
Martin Luther King Jr got one.
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.
But I am grateful for them helping Ukraine even if it for their own geopolitical goals.
How about the mothers still today protesting about their sons/daughters who disappeared (1,248).
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...
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?
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-...
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.
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...
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...
> 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.
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