Author Topic: Nobel peace prize has (again) lost all its credibility in my mind  (Read 25573 times)

Offline chin

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,663
I know some of my friends here may not agree with me, but I have to say this. One reason is because of the book I am reading now. (More on the book later.)

What peace Mr Liu has created? I do not doubt that his cause is noble, but what peace? And last year's to Obama? It's a politically motivated propaganda, hijacking the Nobel name. Nothing more in my mind.

Anyway, the reason I am now making comment on the Nobel Peace Prize is the book I am reading now - The Korean War: A History by Bruce Cumings. This book is not a military history book. It was more about the historical causes, geopolitical context at the time and before, and also the American policy making.

Anyway, one of the little things the book mentioned was that Roosevelt won the Nobel Peace Prize for brokering the ending of Russo-Japanese War. Part of the deal was the American endorsement of Japan colonizing Korea. The brutal occupation created the subsequent deep divide that still lasting today! (Anyway, more about the book in a separate thread in the future.)

This Nobel Peace Prize winner did not created much peace. He had help created lasting conflicts. When Roosevelt broker the peace deal, I bet he had his American interest in mind much much more than peace and love for all. So much for Nobel Peace Prize winner.

The same goes for the Dalai Lama. See my travelogue from the Tibet trip.

Offline hangchoi

  • SBC Old Boys
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,007
  • Alcoholic + Golfmania
    • MaJeff's Wine Blog
Re: Nobel peace prize has (again) lost all its credibility in my mind
« Reply #1 on: 08 October 2010, 23:28:57 »
Yes....somehow I do not know why Liu can earn the prize.

I am watching the television. There shows a list of nominees, some of whom in my opinion deserve the prize more than Liu.

Maybe this time the Nobel Prize Committee wants to show the world that they do not afraid of the threat from China government....
「吾心信其可行,則移山倒海之難,終有成功之日。吾心信其不可行,則反掌折枝之易,亦無收效之期也。」

Offline kido

  • SBC Old Boys
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
Re: Nobel peace prize has (again) lost all its credibility in my mind
« Reply #2 on: 09 October 2010, 00:24:46 »
毛泽东说过:“凡是敌人反对的我们就要拥护 凡是敌人拥护的我们就要反对"
Hey, diddle, diddle ! The cat and the fiddle.

Offline chin

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,663
Re: Nobel peace prize has (again) lost all its credibility in my mind
« Reply #3 on: 09 October 2010, 00:43:41 »
毛泽东说过:“凡是敌人反对的我们就要拥护 凡是敌人拥护的我们就要反对"

Yes, one could not help to think this is the logic behind the decision.

Offline chin

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,663
Re: Nobel peace prize has (again) lost all its credibility in my mind
« Reply #4 on: 18 October 2010, 23:05:23 »
A few days ago SCMP had two articles talking about Liu getting the prize. The pro was written by the editor of Open magazine which has been Liu's publishing platform. The opposition one was written by two professors. See attached (click on picture to see full version).

This is the first time I learned that Liu was (probably still is) advocating the colonization of the whole of China, in the name of progress.

This idea reminded me of a comment I heard from a well known master artisan from the mainland. I was taking him around town few years ago when he was first visiting HK. Just like many mainlanders who first visited Hong Kong - they were especially impressed that road traffics were generally very orderly and no driver was honking. He was saying effectively that that was the result of 100 years of colonization. My friend did not go on say the mainland needs the same, but the observation and conclusion is clear in his mind.

Offline chin

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,663
Re: Nobel peace prize has (again) lost all its credibility in my mind
« Reply #5 on: 12 December 2010, 04:51:50 »
毛泽东说过:“凡是敌人反对的我们就要拥护 凡是敌人拥护的我们就要反对"

From Mingpao
http://news.mingpao.com/20101212/gaa1.htm

Quoting the guy from the decision making committee, the decision was not made on what Liu had done, but what the Chinese government had done.

Quote
【明報專訊】民主黨主席兼支聯會秘書何俊仁引述諾貝爾委員會秘書長倫德斯塔,今年諾貝爾和平獎最終決定頒給劉曉波,原因是諾貝爾委員會看到中國政府重判劉曉波入獄11年,於是決定把和平獎頒給劉曉波。

前往挪威首都奧斯陸參加和平獎頒獎禮的何俊仁,在挪威寫回來的日誌中透露﹕「諾貝爾委員會秘書長對我們說,和平獎有很多人選值得考慮,今年亦不例外,但當中國政府重判劉曉波11年,便毋須再考慮,中國政府強橫應對,顛倒是非,更令今次決定毫無置疑」。劉曉波是在去年12月25日被中國法院重判入獄11年,當時正值諾貝爾委員頒發和平獎給美國總統奧巴馬不久。

...

Offline kai

  • SBC Old Boys
  • ***
  • Posts: 417
Re: Nobel peace prize has (again) lost all its credibility in my mind
« Reply #6 on: 13 December 2010, 17:43:52 »
Yes, this is a political prize rather actually.  But Chinese government is very very sensitive to this, they block all the information and news of this and treat this as a very top 'security' operation.  They even held a '孔子和平奖‘ and award to 连战 who hadn't attend the ceremony.  It is really so 'naive and simple'!  Being a Chinese, I feel so disappointed that our country is nothing different from the ancient time in terms of human rights.  People still have no rights to speak and get news from outside.   >:(
The only limit is your creativity.

Offline chin

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,663
Re: Nobel peace prize has (again) lost all its credibility in my mind
« Reply #7 on: 19 January 2012, 23:13:49 »
So this news is not about Nobel Peace Prize, but a new twist on human rights - a theme that the Nobel Peace Prize has been riding on to promote their vision of world order.

Apparent, now in Europe, property rights is now also a basic human rights, thus the rich fat cat hedge fund manager can legitimately sue Greece in the European Court of Human Rights for defaulting on it's debt to private bondholders.

Human rights?!  ::)

===

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/business/global/hedge-funds-may-sue-greece-if-it-tries-to-force-loss.html?ref=global-home


Hedge Funds May Sue Greece if It Tries to Force Loss

LONDON — Hedge funds have been known to use hardball tactics to make money. Now they have come up with a new one: suing Greece in a human rights court to make good on its bond payments.

The novel approach would have the funds arguing in the European Court of Human Rights that Greece had violated bondholder rights, though that could be a multiyear project with no guarantee of a payoff. And it would not be likely to produce sympathy for these funds, which many blame for the lack of progress so far in the negotiations over restructuring Greece’s debts.

The tactic has emerged in conversations with lawyers and hedge funds as it became clear that Greece was considering passing legislation to force all private bondholders to take losses, while exempting the European Central Bank, which is the largest institutional holder of Greek bonds with 50 billion euros or so.

Legal experts suggest that the investors may have a case because if Greece changes the terms of its bonds so that investors receive less than they are owed, that could be viewed as a property rights violation — and in Europe, property rights are human rights.

The bond restructuring is a critical element for Greece to receive its latest bailout from the international community. As part of that 130 billion euro ($165.5 billion) rescue, Greece is looking to cut its debt by 100 billion euros through 2014 by forcing its bankers to accept a 50 percent loss on new bonds that they receive in a debt exchange.

According to one senior government official involved in the negotiations, Greece will present an offer to creditors this week that includes an interest rate or coupon on new bonds received in exchange for the old bonds that is less than the 4 percent private creditors have been pushing for — and they will be forced to accept it whether they like it or not.

“This is crunch time for us. The time for niceties has expired,” said the person, who was not authorized to talk publicly. “These guys will have to accept everything.”

The surprise collapse last week of the talks in Athens raised the prospect that Greece might not receive a crucial 30 billion euro payment and might miss a make-or-break 14.5 billion euro bond payment on March 20 — throwing the country into default and jeopardizing its membership in the euro zone.

Talks between the two sides picked back up on Wednesday evening in Athens when Charles Dallara of the Institute of International Finance, who represents private sector bondholders, met with Prime Minister Lucas Papademos of Greece and his deputies.

While both sides have tried to adopt a conciliatory tone, the threat of a disorderly default and the spread of contagion to other vulnerable countries like Portugal remains pronounced.

“In my opinion, it is unlikely that this is the last restructuring we go through in Europe,” said Hans Humes, a veteran of numerous debt restructurings and the president and chief executive of Greylock Capital, the only hedge fund on the private sector steering committee, which is taking the lead in the Greek negotiations.

“The private sector has come a long way. We hope that the other parties agree that it is more constructive to reach a voluntary agreement than the alternative.”

At the root of the dispute is a growing insistence on the part of Germany and the International Monetary Fund that as Greece’s economy continues to collapse, its debt — now about 140 percent of its gross domestic product — needs to be reduced as rapidly as possible.

Those two powerful actors — which control the purse strings for current and future Greek bailouts — have pressured Greece to adopt a more aggressive tone toward its creditors. As a result, Greece has demanded that bondholders accept not only a 50 percent loss on their new bonds but also a lower interest rate on them. That is a tough pill for investors to swallow, given the already steep losses they face, and one that would be likely to increase the cumulative haircut to between 60 and 70 percent.

The lower interest rate would help Greece by reducing the punitive amounts of interest it pays on its debt, making it easier to cut its budget deficit.

To increase Greece’s leverage, the country’s negotiators have said they could attach collective action clauses to the outstanding bonds, a step that would give them the legal right to saddle all bondholders with a loss. This would particularly be aimed at the so-called free riders — speculators who have said they will not agree to a haircut and are betting that when Greece receives its aid bundle in March, their bonds will be repaid in full.

If the collective action clause is used — and Greek officials say it could become law next week — these investors, who bought their bonds at around 40 cents on the dollar, are likely to suffer a loss.

That, in turn, could prompt suits from investors claiming in the Court of Human Rights that their property rights had been violated.

“Because Greece is changing the bond contract retroactively, this can become an issue in a human rights court,” said Mathias Audit, a professor of international law at the University of Paris Ouest.

Not all funds are pursuing such a strategy. Such a case would take years and would have to run its course in Greece before being heard by human rights judges in Strasbourg, France.

But with their considerable financial resources, some funds may be willing to pursue such a route, and they point to similar cases won by hedge funds in Latin America. While the prospect of Greece paying an investor any time soon is slim, the country wants to avoid a parade of lawsuits across Europe, which would restrict its ability to raise money in international markets.

Argentina, which defaulted on its debts in 2002, still faces legal claims from investors that have made it nearly impossible for the country to tap global debt markets.

“It cannot be Angela Merkel that decides who suffers losses,” said one aggrieved investor who was considering legal action and did not want to be identified for that reason. “What Europe is forgetting is that there needs to be respect for contract rights.”

It is not just the legal cudgel that investors are threatening to use. Some hedge funds have discussed among themselves the possibility of demanding a side payment, as they describe it, as a price Europe and Greece must pay if the two want the funds to participate in the agreement.

With the stakes so high, a compromise may well be reached. Germany and the I.M.F. may realize that if the private sector is pushed too hard, the deal will collapse and they will have to pay even more money to keep Greece afloat in the coming years.

Eager to put the issue behind them, private sector creditors may accept a larger loss and exchange their nearly worthless Greek bonds for more valuable securities that would also offer enhanced protection if Greece had to restructure in the future.

As for the holdouts, they could run up millions of dollars in legal bills chasing after Greece in European courts.

But beyond all the byzantine wrangling, a crucial question is how this would benefit Greece. Even with the deal, Greece’s debt would be no less than 120 percent of G.D.P. in 2020 — which seems to be slight progress given the austerity and pain its citizens must endure during this period.

“The real issue is not who participates in the deal,” said Jeromin Zettelmeyer, the deputy chief economist at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and an authority on sovereign debt. “The question is whether there is enough debt relief for Greece, and there may not be, because the fiscal and growth situation in Greece is quite dire.”

Offline chin

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,663
Re: Nobel peace prize has (again) lost all its credibility in my mind
« Reply #8 on: 03 February 2012, 06:43:36 »
See my opening post question "What peace Mr Liu has created?"

---

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/01/us-nobel-peace-idUSTRE8101U820120201

Sweden questions Nobel Peace Prize selection basis
By Walter Gibbs

OSLO | Wed Feb 1, 2012 12:50pm EST

OSLO (Reuters) - Swedish authorities are looking into whether the Nobel Peace Prize has been going to the "wrong" type of people, like human rights campaigners and environmentalists, in violation of prize founder Alfred Nobel's will.

The issue has dogged the Norwegian Nobel Committee, which gives the prize, since 2008 when an Oslo-based author began arguing that the prize had drifted from Nobel's intent to promote only disarmament and "peace congresses."

"They are ignoring the will altogether," the author and peace activist, Fredrik Heffermehl, told Reuters.

In his view the last qualified peace prize winners were the United Nations and its then-secretary general, Kofi Annan, in 2001.

Heffermehl, a lawyer, has now won the ear of Stockholm County Administrative Board, whose duties extend to making sure the country's 7,300 registered foundations fulfil the wishes of their dead benefactors.

"Mr. Heffermehl has a couple of good arguments," Mikael Wiman, the board's attorney, told Reuters after he sent a letter this week to the Stockholm-based Nobel Foundation board seeking comment.

While the annual prizes in physics, chemistry, medicine, literature and economics are given in Stockholm, Nobel specified that a committee appointed by the Norwegian parliament should pick the peace prize winner. It is given in Oslo.

Nobel, who invented dynamite, wrote in his 1895 will that the peace prize should go to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Geir Lundestad, the Norwegian committee's executive secretary, said "fraternity between nations" was broad enough to justify every winner in history.

"We reject the idea that we have no respect for the will," Lundestad told Reuters. "There is more than one answer to how the will should be interpreted."

"We will send our statement on March 15 and I think that will be the end of it. We have done nothing wrong."

Heffermehl said human rights campaigners like Liu Xiaobo, the jailed Chinese dissident who won in 2010, and advocates of the poor like Muhammad Yunus, who won in 2006 for popularizing micro-loans, were fine people but "wrong" for the prize.

Nor did he approve of the three 2011 winners: Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Liberian peace activist Leymah Gbowee and Yemeni democracy advocate Tawakkol Karman.

"After last year you would think it's is a prize for democracy and women's rights," he said.