UN wins Nobel Peace Prize.
October 12, 2001 3:56 AM Subscribe
UN wins Nobel Peace Prize. Discuss
That the Nobel Committee is now the People's Choice Award. WE ARE ALL DOOMED.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:38 AM on October 12, 2001
posted by ParisParamus at 4:38 AM on October 12, 2001
Would that make it "UN-nobel"? (ie, un-noble=ignoble)
posted by davidmsc at 5:09 AM on October 12, 2001
posted by davidmsc at 5:09 AM on October 12, 2001
Wow, this seems to be a real good discussion. With participants presenting clear arguments and undisputable facts and stuff. Enjoy yourselves.
posted by igor.boog at 6:18 AM on October 12, 2001
posted by igor.boog at 6:18 AM on October 12, 2001
Of course they got a peace prize! Peace is breaking out all over the globe, don't you watch the news?
posted by revbrian at 6:33 AM on October 12, 2001
posted by revbrian at 6:33 AM on October 12, 2001
Syria got on the Security Council because no one opposed them. When you say the UN did X, then you are saying that the member states alllowed it to happen. An org is only as good as its members, so you are condeming the world.
Anyway, what about UNICEF? And the UN has been a useful forum in general. It has offices all over the world and does useful things like removing landmines in Afganistan or population control in Africa or working for peace in Colombia.
And let's not forget that the UN has been a convenient cover at times for US military actions abroad. Surely that must be of some use to the UN-haters out there?
posted by locombia at 6:55 AM on October 12, 2001
Anyway, what about UNICEF? And the UN has been a useful forum in general. It has offices all over the world and does useful things like removing landmines in Afganistan or population control in Africa or working for peace in Colombia.
And let's not forget that the UN has been a convenient cover at times for US military actions abroad. Surely that must be of some use to the UN-haters out there?
posted by locombia at 6:55 AM on October 12, 2001
I suspect that this year's choices were fairly limited, given that most long-standing peace processes are down the toilet, though the UN's attempt to sort out Macedonia's mess deserves recognition. Could have gone to the west African defence forces in Sierra Leone, but that would involve giving the nod to the Brits as well...
frednorman: you just summed up why I like the UN. Seen the reports on how many US gun dealers sold small arms to Afghanistan? See the US demuring on a small arms treaty? Oh, didn't think so.
posted by holgate at 7:15 AM on October 12, 2001
frednorman: you just summed up why I like the UN. Seen the reports on how many US gun dealers sold small arms to Afghanistan? See the US demuring on a small arms treaty? Oh, didn't think so.
posted by holgate at 7:15 AM on October 12, 2001
Not only was Syria unopposed, it was unanimously supported by all the region's states. But of course, what's democracy count for - it's what America wants that should happen, right?
With the collapse of the cold war, consensus politics has a bit more of a chance - I think the UN is finally realising that it can find a way for itself without toeing the American line, and I think that's a good thing - maybe we'll find that there are solutions to the world's many problems that don't involve bombing the sh*t out of people...
Congrats to the UN and all who work for her(?!). It may not always work, but it's done a lot of good and surprisingly little damage (a quality that tends to get overlooked in the gurrent gung-ho climate).
posted by andrew cooke at 7:16 AM on October 12, 2001
With the collapse of the cold war, consensus politics has a bit more of a chance - I think the UN is finally realising that it can find a way for itself without toeing the American line, and I think that's a good thing - maybe we'll find that there are solutions to the world's many problems that don't involve bombing the sh*t out of people...
Congrats to the UN and all who work for her(?!). It may not always work, but it's done a lot of good and surprisingly little damage (a quality that tends to get overlooked in the gurrent gung-ho climate).
posted by andrew cooke at 7:16 AM on October 12, 2001
I'll rephrase that:
UN wins Nobel Peace Prize. How come Peace Prize discussions always end in fights?
posted by Zootoon at 7:16 AM on October 12, 2001
UN wins Nobel Peace Prize. How come Peace Prize discussions always end in fights?
posted by Zootoon at 7:16 AM on October 12, 2001
Well-documented and well-written arguments for the UN's benefits and failures aside for a moment: The UN as an idea, as a concept for a forum for the world's nations, is fundamentally sound. If it is not capable of promoting peace and prosperity for all, it can only be due to the inability and/or unwillingness of its members to cooperate or to make the effort. For its benefit as a platform for discussion and diplomacy alone, it deserves the prize.
posted by kahboom at 7:26 AM on October 12, 2001
posted by kahboom at 7:26 AM on October 12, 2001
The Nobel committee could have simply declined to award the prize this year.
posted by gimonca at 7:56 AM on October 12, 2001
posted by gimonca at 7:56 AM on October 12, 2001
Gimonca: on its 100th anniversary? not likely? Besides, there are many people and organizations deserving of recognition. It is more important now than ever...
posted by kahboom at 8:02 AM on October 12, 2001
posted by kahboom at 8:02 AM on October 12, 2001
I can't speak for everyone who dislikes the UN, but that make them even more loathesome to me. Every war a world war. Invite me out.
posted by thirteen at 9:44 AM on October 12, 2001
And let's not forget that the UN has been a convenient cover at times for US military actions abroad. Surely that must be of some use to the UN-haters out there?
Sorry, dropped my quote.
posted by thirteen at 9:48 AM on October 12, 2001
Sorry, dropped my quote.
posted by thirteen at 9:48 AM on October 12, 2001
Syria got on the Security Council because no one opposed them
True...although we should add also that ANY UN member state can be voted to serve on the Security Council.
And ditto kahboom's first comment.
posted by PeteyStock at 11:13 AM on October 12, 2001
True...although we should add also that ANY UN member state can be voted to serve on the Security Council.
And ditto kahboom's first comment.
posted by PeteyStock at 11:13 AM on October 12, 2001
Kofi Annan was the head of peacekeeping when the UN failed to act to avert the Rwandan genocide. Kofi Annan repeatedly ignored the warnings of Canadian general Romeo Dallaire, the UN's top soldier in Rwanda, that a genocide was about to occur. Kofi Annan repeatedly turned down Dallaire's requests to go after the arms caches later used in the genocide. Leaving aside the questions about the history or politics of the UN: How can the man who must accept some of the blame for the massacre of over 1 million people get the world's top peace prize seven years later?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:17 PM on October 12, 2001
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:17 PM on October 12, 2001
I suspect it's because everyone focuses on Boutros Boutros Ghali as the fall guy for the Rwanda genocide. But yes, Annan's role in that catastrophe smacks somewhat of the Kissinger effect. However, the Atlantic's recent feature suggests that his underfunded department was already overwhelmed, and in no position to respond to Dallaire, even if the political will had been there among the nations with the clout to act.
posted by holgate at 5:54 PM on October 12, 2001
posted by holgate at 5:54 PM on October 12, 2001
« Older Afghanistan Bombing Could Cause AIDS Explosion | All men are created equal. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Thankfully less people seem to take the "Peace" Prize seriously now, after Arafat received it.
posted by frednorman at 4:32 AM on October 12, 2001