The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2005 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its Director General, Mohamed ElBaradei, for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way.

ElBaradei, who was reappointed last month to a third term, has had to contend with U.S. opposition to his tenure. Much of the opposition stemmed from Washington's perception that he was being too soft on Iran for not declaring it in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. That stance blocked a U.S. bid to haul Tehran before the U.N. Security Council for more than two years.

He also refused to endorse Washington's contention that Iran was working to make nuclear weapons and disputed U.S. assertions that Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq had an active atomic weapons program -- both claims that remain unproven, despite growing suspicions about Tehran's nuclear agenda.

 
The Peace Prize has truly evolved into a sort of US-bashing exercise.  When a terrorist kleptocrat like Yassir Arafat can win the peace prize, you know it has "jumped the shark" to borrow a phrase. 

Give me a break.  Call it the "anti-American award" or the "Nobel Appeasement Prize" or something else.  The United States has done more to promote lasting peace in the past 5 years than the IAEA ever will do.

If not, who would you suggest?
George Bush, Ariel Sharon, Lu Banglie or any other Chinese dissident.

"for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development"

1990 President Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev (USSR) "for his leading role in the peace process which today characterizes important parts of the international community"
1991 Aung San Suu Kyi (Myanmar) "for her non-violent struggle for democracy and human rights"
1992 Author Rigoberta Menchú (Guatemala) "in recognition of her work for social justice and ethno-cultural reconciliation based on respect for the rights of indigenous peoples"
1993 President Nelson Mandela (South Africa) and former President Frederik Willem de Klerk (South Africa) "for their work for the peaceful termination of the apartheid regime, and for laying the foundations for a new democratic South Africa"
1994 PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres (Israel) and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (Israel) "for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East"
1995 Józef Rotblat (Poland/UK) and the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs "for their efforts to diminish the part played by nuclear arms in international politics and, in the longer run, to eliminate such arms"
1996 Carlos Felipe Ximenes Belo (East Timor) and José Ramos Horta (East Timor) "for their work towards a just and peaceful solution to the conflict in East Timor"
1997 International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) and Jody Williams "for their work for the banning and clearing of anti-personnel mines"
1998 John Hume and David Trimble (both Northern Ireland) "for their efforts to find a peaceful solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland"
1999 Médecins Sans Frontières, Brussels. "in recognition of the organization's pioneering humanitarian work on several continents"
2000 President Kim Dae Jung (김대중) (South Korea) "for his work for democracy and human rights in South Korea and in East Asia in general, and for peace and reconciliation with North Korea in particular"
2001 The United Nations and Secretary-General Kofi Annan (Ghana) "for their work for a better organized and more peaceful world"
2002 Jimmy Carter (USA) - former President of the United States "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development"
2003 Shirin Ebadi (شیرین عبادی), (Iran) "for her efforts for democracy and human rights. She has focused especially on the struggle for the rights of women and children."
2004 Wangari Maathai (Kenya) "for her contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace"
2005 The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Mohamed ElBaradei (Egypt) "for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way"

The United States has done more to promote lasting peace in the past 5 years than the IAEA ever will do.

I am sorry CW, but your arguments are truly bizarre. The Noble Peace prize a "US-Bashing exercise", a "anti-America award". In 2002 Jimmy Carter was awarded this price...

(Wikipedia)

Lets review the last 15 award winners shall we ....:

Oh yeah? What did they exactly do, apart from waging a war in Iraq on shaky grounds. Destabilizing the Middle East region and holding people in custody on Guantanamo Bay. Or maybe the torture practises in the Abu Graib? Please explain me what the U.S. did the last five years to improve world peace? What did the U.S. do to make you feel proud?

Right.  Jimmy Carter has been the most outspoken critic of the US government of any living president in history.  What is your point here?

Of 12 winners listed, 6 could arguably be perceived as a slap in the face of US policies or leaders.

Carter - slap
IAEA - slap
Kofi Annan - big huge slap
Arafat - slap and frankly the most bizarre thing ever
ICBL Landmine Campaign - slap (USA not a signatory due to Korean Peninsula)
Gorbachev - mini-slap (note he's not sharing this with Reagan)

We've killed several thousand terrorists, fostered democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, caused Libya to give up its weapons program, saved thousands of people in South Asia from the effects of the tsunami (and now earthquake), fed millions of poor people, encouraged nascent democracies from Kyrgistan to Lebanon, significantly increased anti-AIDS funding for Africa.

Frankly, I'm really restraining myself in responding to what you wrote.  As if all the US does happens in one Iraqi prison or in Guantanamo.  Have you ever noticed that THE REST OF CUBA IS ONE BIG PRISON and the USA is the only nation that seems to notice this?  If you lived in America, you would see every day that Cubans are willing to risk their lives to escape Castro, but let's worry about 500 terrorists prisoners who have ALL HAD HEARINGS IN A COURT!

The detention camp at the US Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay in Cuba has become a symbol of the US administration’s refusal to put human rights and the rule of law at the heart of its response to the atrocities of 11 September 2001. Hundreds of people of around 35 different nationalities remain held in effect in a legal black hole, many without access to any court, legal counsel or family visits.

As evidence of torture and widespread cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment mounts, it is more urgent than ever that the US Government bring the Guantánamo Bay detention camp and any other facilities it is operating outside the USA into full compliance with international law and standards. The only alternative is to close them down.

As for 'de-stabilizing the mid east region' - I can't stop laughing enough to type a response.  Right.  We de-stabilized the middle east who were all doing super-keen before Bush was elected.  Excellent.

Carter - slap
IAEA - slap
Kofi Annan - big huge slap
Arafat - slap and frankly the most bizarre thing ever
ICBL Landmine Campaign - slap (USA not a signatory due to Korean Peninsula)
Gorbachev - mini-slap (note he's not sharing this with Reagan)

Frankly, I'm really restraining myself in responding to what you wrote.  As if all the US does happens in one Iraqi prison or in Guantanamo.  Have you ever noticed that THE REST OF CUBA IS ONE BIG PRISON and the USA is the only nation that seems to notice this?  If you lived in America, you would see every day that Cubans are willing to risk their lives to escape Castro, but let's worry about 500 terrorists prisoners who have ALL HAD HEARINGS IN A COURT!

Why did he critize his country so much? That is certainly not a normal reaction for an ex-president. Maybe he had good reasons?

And at the same time your popularity in the whole world drops. Militant anti-americanism flourishes in the Middle East and Europe is no longer following your lead without questioning, because of the agressive policy of the administration of Bush. I am not saying that the U.S. does nothing to improve the peace and the help the needy in the world, but you said that the U.S. has done more to promote lasting peace than the IAEA in the last five years. I just pointed out some big minors in the American international policy from the past five years. I really don't think that the U.S. has any right for a Noble Price on this moment.

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng


Does this deserve a Noble Prize of Peace? I do not think so.

Ask yourself the question: Did the Iraq War bring peace and stability to the country? They are liberated from Sadam and that is a good thing. But are they better off at this moment? Fighting is still going on in their cities, suicidebombers terrorists etc etc. Iraq is still far from being peaceful. From the very beginning of the war up to THIS moment the U.S has not brought any safety to the country. Maybe in the future if all turns out well and Iraq has become a stable democracy Bush should receive the Noble Prize, but up till now I think ElBaradei and the IAEA deserve it more.

Are come on Carlito... there's no need to repeat the official propaganda lines. Cubans are willing to risk their lives to escape poverty, not Castro - just like Mexicans and Guatemalans and Nicaraguans are willing to risk their lives to get to United States. Mexico is a democracy, so why there're so many mexicans trying to cross the border? Cuba has a first-rate education system, a health system which is an envy of all of Latin America, and a developed industry (microbiology and biotechnology - they're one of the leaders in the field) which helped them to sustain the island's independence having the world's sole superpower as their sworn enemy. You chose not to notice all that, as well as the fact that Americans are the only citizens of the western world who are prohibited to visit Cuba (talk about freedoms!)

As for the 'first rate' anything in Cuba, if you would rather have good health care at the expense of being jailed for criticizing your government, then you can have it.  Please move on down - the weather is great.  It's a whole lot more than poverty which makes people leave.

There's no reason to make it personal - "move on down yourself" is akin to argument "if you're for Iraqi war, then go and enlist".

But I tell you what - first-rate healthcare translates to longer life expectancy. You may find it surprising, but for the most regular people good healthcare is more important than the right to critisize the government. Cubans have  life expectancy similar to the most developed western nations. It's a mistake to lump Saddam's Iraq, North Korea, and Cuba into the same bundle.

By offering to visit through Toronto or Mexico City are you advocating breaking the law? 

 
They have weighed the health-care against the economy and level of freedom, and the vast majority who have a choice choose Miami over Cuba.  Even patriotic Cubans like Jose Contreras (who pitches for the White Sox) who had their families held hostage when they defected - they still defected.  Freedom and opportunity were more important than "first-rate healthcare." 
Would you rather live 80 years in freedom or 85 years under the thumb of a dictator?   
 
Would you rather be healthy and wonder what psychotic Raul Castro will be like when his brother dies and he inherits the 'revolution' or put up with HMO's or charity health care and have political self-determination? 

This is not a fair comparison - Cuba and United States. See how life would be in United States if it was under an embargo by a neighbor with GDP 100 times larger than your own. 

But what I am trying to say - you don't see scores of Cubans emigrating to Mexico or Dominican, or any other local democracy. It's easier to choose Miami over Cuba - but it's not so simple when the choice is between Havana and Santo Domingo.

Since the overthrow of Chile's President Allende in 1973, Pinter has been active in human rights issues, but his opinions have often been controversial. During the Kosovo crisis in 1999, Pinter condemned Nato's intervention and said it will "only aggravate the misery and the horror and devastate the country". In 2001 Pinter joined The International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic, which also included former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark. Milosevic was arrested by the U.N. war crimes tribunal, which plans to try him on charges of crimes against humanity. In January 2002 Pinter was diagnosed with cancer of the oesophagus. In his speech to an anti-war meeting at the House of Commons in November 2002 Pinter joined the world-wide debate over the so-called "preventive war" against Iraq: "Bush has said: "We will not allow the world's worst weapons to remain in the hands of the world's worst leaders." Quite right. Look in the mirror chum. That's you." In February 2005 Pinter announced in an interview that he has decided to abandon his career as a playwright and put all his energy into politics. "I've written 29 plays. Isn't that enough?"

The playwright said: "The US is really beyond reason now. It is beyond our imagining to know what they are going to do next and what they are prepared to do. There is only one comparison: Nazi Germany.

"Nazi Germany wanted total domination of Europe and they nearly did it. The US wants total domination of the world and is about to consolidate that.

<snip>

Pinter blamed "millions of totally deluded American people" for not staging a mass revolt.

<snip>

The US population could not be let off scot-free for putting the country under the control of an "illegally elected president - in other words, a fake".

"There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false."

In his will, Alfred Nobel wrote that the Peace Prize should, among other criteria, be awarded to whoever had done most for the "abolition or reduction of standing armies". In its application of this criterion in recent decades, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has concentrated on the struggle to diminish the significance of nuclear arms in international politics, with a view to their abolition. That the world has achieved little in this respect makes active opposition to nuclear arms all the more important today. Nobel.org

After all, this country, in general, has done little toward abolishing or reducing our armed forces (quite the opposite, in fact), or make any real effort toward promoting or achieving world peace.

We've reduced the size of our armed forces by half in 30 years. Wouldn't that be the exact definition of reduction of standing armies" ? 

1. Are ElBaradei and the IAEA good choices for the Nobel Peace Prize? If not, who would you suggest?

Hmmm, well, let's see. Iran is still openly pursuing a nuclear program, North Korea recently put there's together, every little conflict between Pakistan and India has people talking about nuclear war and China is also considering a nuclear weapon program...Oh yeah, the IAEA's done a cracker jack job. So no, he and the IAEA were horrible choices. I would suggest Ariel Sharone and/or PM Abbas
of the Palestinians, you know, people who actually accomplished something.

CP

Once again blaming the IAEA for Iran and North Korea's refusal to cooperate is pointless. The IAEA doesn't punish violations, it must refer them to the Security council, and even that is the decision of member states.