Hacker News Reader

Comment by erokar | Hacker News Reader

We should not. It's nation branding and it's politicized (I'm Norwegian btw). The members of the committee are appointed by the Norwegian parliment and are mainly former politicians. We all knew they would never have the balls to give it to Snowden. To me, that proves the impotence of the prize.

View on HN

Gandhi didn't receive a Nobel Peace Prize. Snowden is in good company. It's company with the rest of the world at that.

please, name is "Gandhi" not "Ghandi".

Funny, I had edited it just before you said that. I know but it's muscle memory in typing Ghana.

Churchill ensured that Gandhi never received it while he was alive, and he couldn't get it posthumously. I appreciate the efforts of the two recepients, but I don't think it's as great of an achievement to win this prize as the science Nobels.

You can even see the political undertones with the statement about India and Pakistan in the official announcement.

Well, to quote Wikipedia he did unofficially get it: "1948: Not awarded because "there was no suitable living candidate." (A tribute to the recently assassinated Gandhi, since the prize cannot be awarded posthumously.)"

Of course it’s politicised. It’s about politics, after all. I do think it’s quite transparently political, both in intent and outcome. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Honestly, I’m not sure how you even think a non-political Peace Prize would be possible.

Also, I really don’t think Snowden should get a Peace Prize. It’s not like this opinion of yours that Snowden would be a worthy recipient is some kind of objective truth or even self-evident.

So wait because your pet candidate didn't win it's a farce? Children's and girl's education rights are completely worthy of a prize.

The fact that Snowden didn't receive the prize obviously doesn't prove anything one way or the other. The problem is that we all (at least the people of Norway) assumed it would never happen becuase of the political consequences for Norway.

Well, the committee gave China the middle finger. I'm not sure why it wouldn't do the same to the US. Besides, Snowden is at odds with the US while Malala is at odds with the pakistani Taliban. Pakistan has about the same population as Japan, so it's important. Snowden was supposedly a strong candidate, but there are valid reasons not to choose him.

That Snowden didn't face his charges in the states and instead fled to continue his days under the protection of (much more repressive) Vladimir Putin, who himself is a warmonger, and gave the dictator several public relations victories while hypocritically criticizing the US from abroad, severely diluted his moral authority. Had he stayed in the US after the leaks he might have deserved a peace prize, and made a much more profound statement, but he didn't.

You don't enhance your moral authority by adopting a position of weakness and subservience. In general, on the topic of peace, there is never peace through weakness. Wether you need violence or not to exert (your) strength is a wholly different subject. Weakness is inherently unstable, and in a context of instability the ROI on "opportunistic violence" increases. There is plenty of empirical evidence outhere to support this if the logic isn't self evident.

Heroic civil disobedience, in my view, requires violating the law and accepting the consequences in protest. Both laureates Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela flouted the law and accepted the consequences. Were those two individuals adopting a position of subservience and weakness?

Snowden seems pretty subservient to Putin right now, and relies completely on him for his continued safety and asylum in Russia. He's in a pretty weak spot since Putin can dispense with him any time he wishes - either deport him or have him disappear, and the US won't raise a finger - but will keep him around as long as he's politically useful.

All the major victories against repression in 20th century have come via peaceful means. There has been no "peace via war" in 20th century which can come close to the impact of Gandhi, MLK or Mandela.

Mandela? Sorry, what?

Read his autobiography. He makes no apologies for the fact that he embraced guerrilla warfare, and actively waged war against the state. Initially, yes, he and the ANC adopted peaceful means, but when the South African state shutdown and outlawed all the peaceful means at their disposal (e.g. strikes, demonstrations, etc.), he supported, encouraged and actively participated in fighting against the State. Hell, he co-founded Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the ANC, after the Sharpville massacre. Even after his release from prison, he refused to disarm the ANC since the same apartheid state apparatus that he fought against still existed.

Mandela is undoubtedly a great man of peace, and he did manage to bring about an incredible transformation in South Africa, but to say he did it through peaceful means is just incorrect.

That's crazy talk. Nazi Germany much?

Also, one of the major incentives to maintain a strong defense is to keep from having to use it. Of course this principle, like anything else, can be taken too far.

> "You don't enhance your moral authority by adopting a position of weakness and subservience."

Those of us from pacifist religious traditions would disagree.

Pacifism, like anything else, can be taken too far. Einstein himself migrated away from it as he grew older. And Gandhi advocated nonviolent resistance to the Nazis, which very few sane people would agree with then or now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com