The Nobel Peace Prize has shown increasing preference for those that embrace Western values, and has become increasingly political. Of prize winners in the past century, the majority are from Western Europe or North America, according to statistics from the Nobel committee’s website. Is it because Europeans and Americans make more contributions to world’s peace? Of course not.
In fact, the Nobel Peace Prize committee has made numerous controversial decisions. Its award to then US president Barack Obama in 2009 confused not only the majority of the world, but Obama himself, as he was just eight and a half months into the White House. The Dalai Lama, also a laureate, has long engaged in anti-China separatist activities under the guise of religion. The committee’s decision to award Le Duc Tho, a Vietnamese diplomat, and the award to former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger aroused a storm of criticism in 1973.
As China’s foreign ministry said, the prize was wrongly awarded to criminals who attempted to split China, sabotage national unity and subvert State power, for the purpose of achieving their political agenda … it’s time to just cancel the prize altogether.
Two things I really hate.
First, the Nobel ‘Peace Prize’. It was created back in 1895 by that inventor of dynamite and arms manufacturer, the Swede Alfred Nobel. With that kind of pedigree, it was only ever going to be an ideological tool – backed with a good deal of dodgy cash – in capitalist imperialism. To wit, the recent speech given by Aung San Suu Kyi – the Burmese lackey of the USA – in Oslo as she accepted the gong first tossed her way in 1991.
‘Freedom’, ‘democracy’, she said, ‘and, by the way, come and screw us over, you trans-nationals’.
Meanwhile, Hilary Clinton stood by and grinned in a way that uncannily reminds one of a shark:
Here’s one to make you cringe:
Second, the Dalai Lama and Tibetan ‘Independence’. This media tart and charlatan is, of course, another winner of the Nobel imperial gong. Tibet is a cause célèbre among hand-wringing liberals, chardonnay socialists and a USA increasingly worried about their cracking and crumbling influence. But what does it mean to support Tibetan ‘independence’?
It is worth noting that in 1951, Tibet’s political leaders decided to join the P.R. China. They accepted ‘regional national autonomy’ status – as other areas – and agreed to carry out some reforms. In turn the new Chinese communist government agreed not to abolish the powers of Tibet’s religious leaders or to impose reforms by force. Soon enough, however, these leaders found that their traditional forms of rule – in which a gaggle of otiose aristocrats, ‘spiritual’ leaders and exploiters kept the majority in servile and brutal poverty – were being eroded. So in 1959 this feudal rump, under the Dalai Lama, led a revolt, which was quickly put down by Chinese forces. However, the main reason it failed was that the common people simply didn’t want to support this bunch of thugs. So the Dalai Lama took his ragtag bunch of the dispossessed ruling class and skipped across the border to India and pretended to be the Tibetan government ‘in exile’. But how did the revolt really come about? Back in 1956, the regime in Taiwan was providing significant ‘aid’ – in arms, money and training – to Tibetan rebels. You can guess the source of that ‘aid’. Already in 1949, the USA gave some Tibetan leaders US$75 million to ‘defend’ their country. In 1950, Tibetan ‘goodwill missions’ went to the USA, UK and India to ‘discuss’ Tibetan independence. From then on, a regular flow of ‘aid’ went to Tibet and the feudal pretenders around the Dalai Lama, via India, while the CIA trained Tibetan saboteurs in Colorado. When parachuted back into Tibet, they were spectacularly unsuccessful.
You can bet that such ‘encouragement’ of Tibetan ‘independence’ has not abated today.