A Nobel Peace Prize Awarded for the Collapse of China

Kirill Govorov (Russia)

“Si vis pacem, para bellum”—if you wish peace, prepare for war. Apparently, the jokers on the Royal committee in Norway are guided by that ancient adage as time after time they award the Nobel Peace Prize to political and social figures whose contribution to world peace is doubtful, to say the least.

This year, the laurel of chief peacemaker for 2010 went to the Chinese activist Liu Xiaobo, who was sentenced to 11 years imprisonment by his homeland for “inciting subversion of state power.” The Nobel jury has not explained how someone could be a model “dove of peace” whom the Chinese authorities believe carried out nothing less than extremist activities intended to destabilize society by inciting hatred among its different components (in other words, provoking a civil war) and is now receiving his well-deserved punishment in a correctional institution.

However, after last year’s decision to award the Peace Prize to the newly elected American president, who continues to preside over the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, we cannot seriously discuss the logic of the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

Beijing’s reaction to this latest provocative step by the West was quite predictable. Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu called the action a desecration of the prize. He said, “Liu Xiaobo is a sentenced criminal who has violated Chinese law,” and he added the actions of the Chinese dissident “runs counter to the principles of the Nobel Peace Prize.” He said the award could “damage Sino-Norwegian relations.”

However, the angry retort of the “Chinese comrades” has not made much of an impression on the Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Thorbjørn Jagland. “China’s new status must entail increased responsibility,” he lectured China’s leadership about the harsh geopolitical realities of the modern world, in which any new center of power encroaching on the hegemony of another State invariably becomes the object of aggressive demarches and attacks by all of “progressive Western humanity.”

“The Norwegian Nobel Committee has long believed that there is a close connection between human rights and peace,” he said. That last remark is quite reasonable in principle, despite its derisive tone. We have long known that when the United States or its allies in the coalition of Western countries begins questioning the observance of human rights among its geopolitical competitors, we can forget about peace.

Konstantin Sokolov, Vice President of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, had this to say about the decision of the Nobel Committee:

“The activities of the Nobel Committee are primarily deserving of attention as they pertain to prizes in the natural sciences. The prizes for peace and literature are clearly political in nature. Unfortunately, it appears that the organization carries out political orders, and this year’s decision is no exception; rather, it is the rule. We would be hard-pressed to find positive examples that would meet with our approval.”

“I have noticed that the chief motivation of the Nobel Committee is to award prizes for upholding human rights. By and large, the struggle for human rights is a struggle for the priority of private interests over society’s. That is an anti-collectivist idea that was at one time promoted by the Masons. Let’s just say that in our country “Fatherland and Faith” has been the highest consideration, and it has been considered an honor “lay down one’s life for another.” Above all else, the concept of human rights means the rights of the individual. That idea in and of itself has very definite political overtones.”

“It would be different if prizes were given for defending the rights of peoples to live independently and in accord with their spiritual values. Those rights are often grossly violated, but that bothers no one. But the rights of the individual, who may make demands outside the norms of morality and ethics that have developed historically in a given society, are given primacy. Even including rights for perverts and sodomites.”

“The deadline for nominations for last year’s Nobel Peace Prize ended six days after Barack Obama’s inauguration. Apparently, he was able to accomplish so much in six days that he was immediately awarded a Nobel Prize. That is not even deserving of comment. It was a purely elitist political decision intended to increase the international prestige of the newly elected US president.”

“As for the Chinese dissident, that also was an entirely political decision. The fact is that the time is approaching when China will be subjected to serious attacks intended to dramatically reduce its population. Of course, it will not be direct military aggression. It could take the form of various natural and social catastrophes that appear natural but are in fact triggered by artificial means. And stirring up discord within China is consistent with that strategy. Remember, that is exactly how the powerful Falun Gong movement works, and its leader “miraculously” escaped Chinese justice in the United States.”

Source: New Eastern Outlook

6 Comments

  1. Pingback: Don’t Nobel without reading this!

  2. Pingback: The essentials of Nobel.

  3. Konstantin Sokolov made some sense, until he completely disqualified himself with the ridiculous “perverts and sodomites”, terminology that seems to express nostalgia for Yezhovshchina.

  4. @Spengler
    I guess few readers of my blog understand what does ‘Yezhovshchina’ mean :) Yezhov was a Soviet Interior Minister for a while during Stalin’s reign.
    For me Mr. Sokolov’s phrase on ‘sodomites’ brings an ultimate moral basis to his claims. Because human dignity can not be sinful, and the notion of human rights is inseparable from human dignity.

  5. Pingback: The Sufferings of a Chinaman in China | Oriental Review

  6. @Fomine:

    Yezhov is better known as head of the NKVD, the Soviet secret police. The reason I mentioned Yezhovshchina (a.k.a. “The Great Terror”) is because the show trials during Stalin’s reign depended on ridiculous, trumped up charges. “Perverts and sodomites” is a similar trumped up charge.

    As if being a traitor and political agitator is not simply enough, the charge of “sexual degeneracy” is added in an attempt to assassinate character. But morals regarding sexuality are irrelevant to political affairs. If they have any place in the public sphere at all, it is in the context of quaint religious dogma.

Leave a Reply