Today's topic is whether or not a Nobel Peace Prize should ever be rescinded. Plenty of controversy surrounds the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize over the years. For instance, why was Gandhi never awarded the prize despite 5 nominations (the last shortly before his murder in 1948)? And if the award is supposed to be for contributions to peace, why did the award go to Barrack Obama before he did anything as President of the U.S.? (editorial comments: nothing he did ensured or furthered the cause of peace in the world).
Now comes the question of Aung San Suu Kyi keeping the Nobel Peace Prize despite her actions as President of Myanmar related to the vicious attacks aimed at the Rohingya population of Myanmar. U.N. reports and a separate U.S. report argue that Myanmar's military is guilty of driving over 700,000 Rohingya from their homes in Myanmar and mass killings of Rohingya. Collectively these incidents present an argument for charges of ethnic cleansing and genocide to be levied against the government of Myanmar, presided over by Suu Kyi.
Now comes the question of Aung San Suu Kyi keeping the Nobel Peace Prize despite her actions as President of Myanmar related to the vicious attacks aimed at the Rohingya population of Myanmar. U.N. reports and a separate U.S. report argue that Myanmar's military is guilty of driving over 700,000 Rohingya from their homes in Myanmar and mass killings of Rohingya. Collectively these incidents present an argument for charges of ethnic cleansing and genocide to be levied against the government of Myanmar, presided over by Suu Kyi.
I blogged about this violence perpetrated by the military of Myanmar and Suu Kyi's role and statements (she even said in June 2016 to not use the term Rohingya in talking about those people because it was emotive and not representative of an noted identity in Myanmar). Recall my two cents at that point:
"For my two cents, what troubles me most is that Suu Kyi does not even seem to grasp the level of hypocrisy in her actions and those of the government she represents. The same people who were the opposition without a voice in civic society are now denying not just a voice, but an identity to others in civic society. Democracy does not mean an end to problems Suu Kyi, it means the beginning of social interaction and negotiation/coercion. Government is about allocating resources, it is about determining property rights, etc. In a democracy this action can get messy, but to be a democracy you have to recognize the voices in your population. Sorry Rohingya, a once great advocate of democracy and legal equality has failed you and in doing so has dimmed my hopes for Myanmar."
"For my two cents, what troubles me most is that Suu Kyi does not even seem to grasp the level of hypocrisy in her actions and those of the government she represents. The same people who were the opposition without a voice in civic society are now denying not just a voice, but an identity to others in civic society. Democracy does not mean an end to problems Suu Kyi, it means the beginning of social interaction and negotiation/coercion. Government is about allocating resources, it is about determining property rights, etc. In a democracy this action can get messy, but to be a democracy you have to recognize the voices in your population. Sorry Rohingya, a once great advocate of democracy and legal equality has failed you and in doing so has dimmed my hopes for Myanmar."
In an article today in Reuters, the head of the Nobel Foundation offered some thoughts regarding revocation of Nobel Peace Prizes:
Lars Heikensten, speaking days before the awarding of this year’s peace prize, said it made no sense to withdraw awards in reaction to things that happened after they were given, as judges would constantly have to discuss laureates' merits.
"We see what she's been doing in Myanmar has been questioned a lot and we stand for human rights, that's one of our core values," Lars Heikensten, the head of the Nobel Foundation, said.
"So of course to the extent that she's responsible for that, that is very regrettable," he added.
(The above quotes are taken from an article in Reuters on October 2, 2018, Read more here).
For my two cents, it was against the spirit of the award to give it to Obama. revoking it should not be controversial. The granting of the award to Aung San Suu Kyi was genuine. I am bitterly disappointed in her pandering to the Buddhist majority population and failure to control the behavior of the military in Myanmar. I believe that the time has come for the Nobel Foundation to consider a special ad-hoc committee for the purpose of reviewing awards granted to date. I fail to see it as controversial to rescind an award given to someone who engages in actions at a later date that are seen as crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc. I fail to see it as controversial to say that a committee overstepped the spirit of the award and the reason for granting the award was never achieved by the recipient.
For my two cents, it was against the spirit of the award to give it to Obama. revoking it should not be controversial. The granting of the award to Aung San Suu Kyi was genuine. I am bitterly disappointed in her pandering to the Buddhist majority population and failure to control the behavior of the military in Myanmar. I believe that the time has come for the Nobel Foundation to consider a special ad-hoc committee for the purpose of reviewing awards granted to date. I fail to see it as controversial to rescind an award given to someone who engages in actions at a later date that are seen as crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc. I fail to see it as controversial to say that a committee overstepped the spirit of the award and the reason for granting the award was never achieved by the recipient.
