It does feel more like the 'Western moral prize' rather than a Peace Prize.
Truth is, the most peaceful transitions are usually military coups. 'Peacefully' won transitions are often the bloodiest. Fear is a terrible thing, but it does lead to effective peace.
With the Nobel Peace Prize, it's usually a coin toss between moral martyr, future genocider and someone who did impactful work towards peace. The best example of their schizo-ness is Gandhi. They didn't award Gandhi when he lead a peaceful resistance. But, awarded it posthumously in the aftermath of the bloodiest & nastiest population exchange in the history of humanity.
> It does feel more like the 'Western moral prize' rather than a Peace Prize.
I'm not seeing the problem here. Some non-Western regimes seem to think it's fine to deny people their human rights, e.g. Iran, Venezuela, Afghanistan, China. There is no moral equivalence between Western and those.
2/4 of those were in better conditions before the US invaded them for oil interests.
Venezuela's bloodiness is in part because of CIA funded violent opposition. Venezuela while a basket case now, is still a "what if" in a world without CIA interreference and unilateral sanctions.
China is odd. It is an autocratic repressive regime with their recent founder having the 2nd highest body count of any leader. But, it is also the most impressive story of raising an slice of humanity from poverty into a strong middle economy.
Western countries think about peace & human rights in isolation. What recent democratic nation has managed to elevate itself from abject poverty to being a strong middle economy, with no natural resources ride to infinity. India might have something to show over the next 30 years, but as of today, they started off richer than China at independence and find themselves miles behind. All of Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, Thailand & Japan had their growth occur under incredibly repressive govts. They might seem peaceful countries today, they certainly weren't that during their growth.
> moral equivalence
Moral equivalence can only exist when all other variables are the same. Norway might claim moral high ground on account of being an egalitarian nation, but its entire economy is oil. Remove the oil, and you might see their claimed unwavering morals waver.
> Norway might claim moral high ground on account of being an egalitarian nation, but its entire economy is oil. Remove the oil, and you might see their claimed unwavering morals waver.
apparently you were born after 1980. Who cares about their oil?
> Venezuela's bloodiness is in part because of CIA funded violent opposition.
Oh, I see. So Chavez & Maduro are because of the CIA? What a world we live in, where the CIA has such awesome power such that everything "bad" is their fault. I suppose now they're powerless until Maduro is finally gone, and then it'll be their doing.
Yet they still can't get rid of Castro, predict the fall of the Soviet Union, keep the Shah in power, or stop 9/11. They're only powerful when something you don't like happens.
Maybe you should move to one of those people's paradises. It sounds like you'd be happier there.
Not all peaces are equal. One peace might be that of some idyllic utopia where all are content, healthy, and safe. Then there is the peace of the death camp which has completed its mission and has no victims left to murder. And countless peaces in between those two extremes, some better and less violent, some gruesome and traumatizing even just to describe.
I cannot say which peace the Nobel awards, or even if it awards to the same sort of peace year to year. But if anyone can do something about the Iranian government, then maybe they do deserve the thing. I doubt he ever meant it to become the "successful eternal subjugation of humanity" award.
It's worse. She obviously deserves a western moral prize, but peace Nobel in last decades is "Moral wank to make westerners feel good about themselves"
Truth is, the most peaceful transitions are usually military coups. 'Peacefully' won transitions are often the bloodiest. Fear is a terrible thing, but it does lead to effective peace.
With the Nobel Peace Prize, it's usually a coin toss between moral martyr, future genocider and someone who did impactful work towards peace. The best example of their schizo-ness is Gandhi. They didn't award Gandhi when he lead a peaceful resistance. But, awarded it posthumously in the aftermath of the bloodiest & nastiest population exchange in the history of humanity.