China's Influence Widens Nobel Peace Prize Boycott 360
c0lo writes "Not only did China decline to attend the upcoming Nobel peace prize ceremony, but urged diplomats in Oslo to stay away from the event warning of 'consequences' if they go. Possibly as a result of this (or on their own decisions), 18 other countries turned down the invitation: Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, Russia, Kazakhstan, Colombia, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Venezuela, the Philippines, Egypt, Ukraine, Cuba and Morocco. Reuters seems to think the 'consequences' are of an economic nature, pointing out that half of the countries with economies that gained global influence during recent times are boycotting the ceremony (with Brazil and India still attending)."
Re:And nothing of value was lost (Score:4, Interesting)
Mr. Obama was elected and was immediately awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize before he had a chance to make any change. I wouldn't call him a warmonger, but we're still at odds with the Middle East, and he/we appear to have no plan in sight to change that.
This should put the US on notice (Score:2, Interesting)
Reuters seems to think the 'consequences' are of an economic nature, pointing out that half of the countries with economies that gained global influence during recent times are boycotting the ceremony (with Brazil and India still attending).
With China and other foreign countries holding more that half of the US debt, such a development should put the US on notice. It appears that those countries that 'boycotted' the ceremonies have seen the writing on the wall: China matters, and matters big time.
Over in these United States, our politicians keep bickering about how to 'handle' the massive deficit all the while making it worse with every regime/administration.
Sad indeed. Just the other month, China and Russia plotted to dump the US currency. [ibtimes.com] If this comes to fruition, all hell will break lose. Trust me on this.
Re:Consequences (Score:2, Interesting)
And never in my life have I witnessed such unwarranted vitriol, hatred and lying denigration towards an intelligent, well-meaning, decent man. Obama's no saint and he may never be ranked among the great Presidents, but idiots in the US voted in a corporate puppet who couldn't articulate two sentences in a row TWICE. Just about anyone would have looked pretty good after that.
The US, and the world, was ready for change and that's how Obama was perceived - a man of average circumstances, who, in his person, represented a bridging of cultural, religious and linguistic divides. And, despite the political polarisation of present-day America, he has tried to reach across the aisle but the opposition are holding
the voters hostage to their elitist agenda.
Did ordinary civilians show up at Bush meetings carrying firearms? I don't recall any message from the President that he wants to revoke the Second Amendment.
I guess John Kerry got some ridiculously unfair treatment from the Swift Boaters but there did seem to be some legit questions about his war record and discarding his medals.
I'd love to see Time do an expose on the Koch brothers, who seem to be the real shadow power in America these last years.
Re:Creating own award (Score:5, Interesting)
Ignoring pleas of the people isn't exactly the kind of things he advocated.
Are you kidding me? Harmony of the state and living under a strict hierarchy are the linchpins of Confucious thought. The very idea that the "people" should be able to have a voice, let alone use it, would have been anathema to him and his contemporaries.
Confucius was a statist, pure and simple. Trying to paint him otherwise does a disservice to history and distorts the man's beliefs (however much I might disagree with them, I'm not going to deny he had them or that he was proud of them).
Re:Good - I hope the world boycotts it (Score:4, Interesting)
So you're saying I should be getting my notification for a Nobel prize shortly, huh?
I mean, I haven't even continued the two wars that someone else started! I'm way more peaceful than Barrack Obama! I'm quite possibly the most peaceful man on the planet!
BTW, Obama didn't do anything before he was selected, he didn't have time to. He won the award for being anything other than a Republican, preferably someone who says a lot of really nice things but never follows through. It wasn't just for not being Bush, as many people claim, there is no way in hell they would have given it to McCain.
That is pure, unadulterated bullshit right there.
Apparently the Peace Prize has been a joke since day one, as people who know the history of such things have been pointing out. That is really sad because every once in a while they seem to actually get someone half-way decent, and it tarnishes their reputation more than anything.
Re:Creating own award (Score:5, Interesting)
"There was an obligation for the bottom to respect the top, and also for the top to respect the bottom."
In practice - identical to the way class-society worked in Victorian (and earlier) England. The upper classes were meant to have a duty of protection, charity and upliftment toward the lower-classes who did all the work and got none of the benefits of education, wealth or power.
The difference is- the West actually learned that this doesn't work. It was in the context of a country not very long *out* of a full class system (the Victorian "democracy" was starting out at best with almost all the power at that stage in the House of Lords - which was decidedly undemocratic), that Churchill made his famous dictum about democracy being the worst form of government except for all the others.
But mind you - Britain didn't really shed the class system as a cornerstone of their society until the 70's. The great class war was fought to the music of the sex pistols !
It took a good hundred years to get to that far and even today British royalty and upper classes are still privileged (though their say in the day-to-day running of the country has been largely destroyed)...
China however, hasn't even made the slightest start.
The entire world has been the kind of complete statist that China is now. We all did it. All our ancestors tried it, practically every Western nation was once an absolute monarchy. The reality is- we changed it because it doesn't work. China hasn't learned that yet, but if history is anything to go by - they will.
The real question is - will China fall (like most of those monarchies) in bloody revolution ? Or will they have the sense (like a few of them) to recognize the inevitability of the fall of statism- and implement reforms themselves before it comes to that ? The current Chines politburo's approach and statements (especially the rather telling ones on this peace prize) suggest that we shouldn't bet on it...
Re:Chinese Diplomacy (Score:5, Interesting)
Please do not confuse Chinese and China. There are many democratic Chinese people living elsewhere in the world that want nothing to do with the corporo-fascist government of China. You can not even call it a Chinese government as the majority of Chinese living in China have little on no influence over the Government of China.
Personally this is a diplomatic mistake as it points out exactly which countries China has financial influence over, Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, Russia, Kazakhstan, Colombia, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Venezuela, the Philippines, Egypt, Ukraine, Cuba and Morocco. Russia is the interesting one, although it is likely they don't care one way or the other about China's opinion and stayed away for their own reasons. As for Iraq and Colombia, hmm, perhaps they are trying to get out from under the US and looking to build relations with China or more likely Russia. In fact quite a few more likely stayed away to align with Russia rather than China.
In fact it would be interesting to find out why Russia did not attend.
Re:Creating own award (Score:5, Interesting)
The reality is- we changed it because it doesn't work.
The system worked well enough to make the British Empire the largest empire the world has ever seen, and to give a relatively small nation dominance and influence above it's weight for several centuries.
The system has worked so far in propelling China towards becoming the world's largest economy, and in urbanising and significantly raising the standard of living for hundreds of millions of people who previously lived as subsistence farmers.
This is not a question of being "statist" or "not statist", as the terms are too simple... some people would say that the legal authority of the Federal Reserve to print notes is statist. Using the military to enact social and political goals through both war and plain old "defense spending"? Statist. Building highways and railroads? Statist. Even the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] fails to give some actual measurable attributes of what makes a thing "statist". All governments must plan growth by investing in infrastructure and technologies, but at what level does this get labelled "statist"?
The more interesting question is - what exactly is it that has given China this competitive advantage now? Does removing human rights protection (and hence democracy, as people would not vote for this) result in huge economic growth? Or is it just the natural result of having a billion-person common market with wages massively below the rest of the world? In response to the recession both the U.S. and China announced the creation of high-speed rail networks - the result being that China will have created the world's largest network in just over a decade, whilst Americans will have spent that decade arguing in the courts. China has flattened entire towns, to be paved over and replaced with newly built cities - this may be more efficient development, but would we be willing to give the government the right to do this in order to remain competitive in the global economy? If democracy and personal freedom (or greed) really is a less efficient way to manage a large national economy, then what do we choose - less democracy, less individual power, more government/corporate power, or stay the same? Which way do you think the powers that be are trying to drive our society in order to become more competitive in this new global age?
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)