Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel peace prize

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/29/edward-snowden-nominated-nobel-peace-prize

by ahjones • 12 years ago

1028 191 12 years ago

The Norwegian Nobel Committee is composed of five members appointed by the Storting (Norwegian Parliament). The Committee's composition reflects the relative strengths of the political parties in the Storting, and is assisted by specially appointed expert advisers.

Tloewald• 12 years ago

He certainly deserves it more than Obama (let's not mention Kissinger).

Nux• 12 years ago

Yep, they should take it back from Obama and give it to Snowden.

heelhook• 12 years ago

Fortunately its not about who deserves it more than whom, (theoretically) its about who deserves it the most (although, imho, that's hardly ever the case).

Numberwang• 12 years ago

At the time he got it he and Putin deserved it. Had he not gotten it then, he would def. not deserve it now after all the horrible decisions he's made since.

mushfiq• 12 years ago

Frankly speaking I dont think any one can give "valid" explanation why Obama won it!

sigzero• 12 years ago

There is no valid reason, that is why.

znowi• 12 years ago

Obama's prize was more of a credit for good deeds in the future. Jagland himself (Nobel committee chairman) partly confirmed that. Sadly, it didn't work out. Rather backfired.

ekianjo3• 12 years ago

except that obama kept the million dollar prize. since he didnt return it id call that stealing.

seferphier• 12 years ago

the ability to sell 'hope' and 'change' is a powerful one.

angersock• 12 years ago

What's wrong with good ole' Hank?

lclemente• 12 years ago

2009 - Obama

2014 - Snowden

That would certainly be something ;)

return02• 12 years ago

2015: Putin

It's like they are giving the Emmys to the actors of some weird worldwide soap opera.

daemonk• 12 years ago

When did the Nobel peace prize become the "most-influential" prize.

hessenwolf2• 12 years ago

I assume it must have been before it lost the status when they gave it to a guy who had yet to do anything, other than give some captivating speeches... so... several minutes sometime?

aestra• 12 years ago

No way, it was always a joke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize#Criticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies

Shish2k• 12 years ago

a guy who had yet to do anything

Thus making him infinitely more peaceful than every other major politician of the era :P

(If by "major politician" you mean "American president", and by "era" you mean "2001-2010". Which actually is what most people mean, AFAICT...)

scrrr• 12 years ago

Who says it's the 'most-influential' prize?

lechevalierd3on2• 12 years ago

When Obama got it before he had a chance to do something to deserve it.

icantthinkofone• 12 years ago

Anybody can get nominated. Being seriously considered is more important.

codecondo• 12 years ago

He did open the eyes for many, he clearly was 'sent' here to do just that. Who else?

chao-• 12 years ago

Wouldn't be a bad consolation for being passed over as the TIME person of the year.

praptak2• 12 years ago

While I'm fond of any form of flipping the NSA-backing US administration the bird, the Nobel Peace prize has not enough reputation to matter in this context.

Al Gore got it for raising awareness of climate change. Obama got that for not being Bush. Even if Snowden gets it, it doesn't really matter.

thomasfl• 12 years ago

Obama got that for not being Bush

That's probably what he's is going to be remembered for. Poor guy.

brazzy• 12 years ago

There are a whole lot of worse things one might be remembered for. Being Bush, for one.

netcan2• 12 years ago

Yasser Arafat & Yitzhak Rabin were awarded it, its not clear if they intended to create a peace, but they did not. Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho were awarded it. Henry Kissinger meanwhile embarked on a major bombing campaign and Le Duc Tho declined the honour.

They've made premature or outright bad calls before.

aroman2• 12 years ago

Yasser Arafat & Yitzhak Rabin were awarded it, its not clear if they intended to create a peace, but they did not.

I'm sorry, what? You aren't sure if Rabin and Arafat "intended to create peace"? What exactly do you think they were intending?

reuven3• 12 years ago

I don't think that the Peace Prize is only meant for people who have made tangible changes in the amount of violence in the world. It's also a carrot that you can dangle in front of people to reward them for taking risks in the interest of reducing violence.

Rabin and Arafat (and Peres) tried, with the Oslo accords, to move toward a settlement of a long-standing, violent dispute. They didn't completely succeed. And indeed, you could argue (as many do) that the Oslo accords were a mistake. But they were willing to take risks in order to perhaps make things more peaceful for their people, and that's the sort of thing that the Nobel Committee wanted to reward.

Of course, now that I've described things in this way, maybe Snowden is an appropriate recipient...

ekianjo3• 12 years ago

Obama got it before he did anything at all. By default. And in retrospect hes not that different from Bush.

sergiotapia2• 12 years ago

In all honesty, Obama got it for being the first black president - it was a HUGE deal, remember that.

jfc• 12 years ago

What do you mean, "in all honesty"? Unless you were privvy to the evaluative processes for the award, what you're saying is pure speculation.

blisterpeanuts2• 12 years ago

They should have waited 3-4 years to see if he would actually accomplish something beyond getting elected. I'm not saying he didn't accomplish anything, but traditionally a great honor is bestowed for achievements past, not potential achievements.

krzyk• 12 years ago

I assume that there are a lot of black presidents e.g. in Africa, I don't think a lot of them got that award.

tunap• 12 years ago

That is a good point. A step in the right direction for humankind.

The problem is, despite appearances, the new boss is the same as the old boss.

return02• 12 years ago

No, they gave it to him "for his 'extraordinary efforts' to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples".

At least if they had given it to him for being black, they wouldn't be lying through their teeth

dinkumthinkum5• 12 years ago

That's pretty ridiculous. You are really misrepresenting what happened. Sure, you can say it was little more than for a promissory note of peace, which is what people were saying at the time but this is just too much.

Agathos• 12 years ago

On that note, even Bush got nominated at least once... for not not being Bush.

patricjansson• 12 years ago

It would be critisim agains the committee itself, giving it to someone pointing out previous laureates as anti-peaceloving.

Lazare3• 12 years ago

Some may find the list of people who can nominate someone for the Nobel peace prize interesting. From their website:

Members of national assemblies and governments of states; Members of international courts; University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes; Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize; Board members of organizations that have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize; Active and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; Former advisers to the Norwegian Nobel Committee

Most of those are fairly small groups; but "Members of national assemblies and governments of states" is a pretty big chunk of people, and "professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology" is a simply enormous group of people.

As a result, nominations are very meaningless; any third rate history or sociology prof at some podunk community college can nominate someone if they have a mind to, and all sorts of people get nominated, often as a lark or to prove a point. I believe Bush was nominated repeatedly, for example. (Well...nominations are secret, but I know of people who have the ability to nominate, and claimed to have done so, and I don't see why they'd bother to lie, so...)

So yes, Snowden was nominated (well, unless these politicians are lying). Honestly, he was probably nominated dozens of times. This isn't news. Also, a couple of left-wing Norwegian politicians like Snowden. Also not news. :) The only real news here is if he wins...

belorn• 12 years ago

"professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology" is a simply enormous group of people.

It used to be that professor status was very regulated. In Sweden prior to 1993, a professor title was granted by the government, and in practice one could only become a professor if such role was currently unfilled.

Was the Noble price nomination rules created before 1993?

Lazare3• 12 years ago

The rules actually were relaxed in 1993; I'm not sure what they were before that.

_delirium• 12 years ago

It's a bit unclear in English nowadays, because in Scandinavian-written academic English, 'professor' sometimes refers only to the formal title Professor, which corresponds to what Americans sometimes call "Full Professor", but in other usages it includes a broader set of faculty. For example the three academic titles in Danish are Professor, Lektor, and Adjunkt, but in recent years their official English translations are Full Professor, Associate Professor, and Assistant Professor, which better reflects how the roles have evolved in practice. So are the latter two included under the term "professors" when a Danish institution writes something in English? Sometimes yes, sometimes no...

plq• 12 years ago

The only real news here is if he wins...

Nitpicking a bit maybe, but he obviously can't win without being nominated. So this is still news.

d23• 12 years ago

Unless...

he was probably nominated dozens of times.

Lazare3• 12 years ago

Kinda, but I think it was really obvious that he'd be nominated. There's hundreds of nominations every year; Manning has been nominated repeatedly times, Assange has been nominated. Now Snowden's in the news; what were the odds some politician somewhere wouldn't take the opportunity to get some easy headlines by nominating Snowden? I can't imagine him not getting a few nominations. :)

calibwam• 12 years ago

The Nobel Committee will consider any nominee, but it may also consider other entities that it seem fit. So in a way, you don't have to be nominated.

nivla• 12 years ago

I believe Bush was nominated repeatedly.

Ha even bizzaring, Adolf Hitler was once nominated. [1]

[1] http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/facts/peace/

valarauca12• 12 years ago

Hitler was TIME magazine man of year, and for a decent while in America Fascism was mildly popular (circa 1930's). Its strange looking back on a that time (Post Holocaust and WW2). American Newspapers applauded the works of fascists claiming, "They got the trains to run on time."

praptak2• 12 years ago

Getting nominated is pretty low bar, Joseph Stalin has also been nominated.

nathancahill• 12 years ago

Godwin's Law!

lispsil2• 12 years ago

Obama actually won it even though he campaigned saying he was all for summary drone executions. Guess the committee didn't hear those speeches

orp• 12 years ago

According to site you're citing, the nomination was actually an attempt at satire by a Swedish MP:

"Apparently though, Brandt never intended the nomination to be taken seriously. Brandt was to all intents and purposes a dedicated antifascist, and had intended this nomination more as a satiric criticism of the current political debate in Sweden."

No need for complex explanations when a simple one is given.

adobriyan• 12 years ago

Attending ceremony will be tricky.

chippy• 12 years ago

Norway and Russia share a border. So it may be easier than at first glance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway%E2%80%93Russia_border

Peroni• 12 years ago

I think the comment was intending to highlight the fact that multiple international organisations are trying to arrest Snowden and his appearance at the awards would put him in jeopardy, not that travel logistics might be an issue.

coldcode• 12 years ago

Maybe we can get someone to nominate the NSA for the peace prize. Would make for fun commentary.

valarauca12• 12 years ago

Well theoretically all this global spying and bombing targets from remote controlled airplanes piloted half a world away should be making a safer more peaceful world right?

hawkharris• 12 years ago

Snowden hasn't officially been nominated. From the article:

"The five-member [Nobel] panel will not confirm who has been nominated but those who submit nominations sometimes make them public."

jebus989• 12 years ago

You know how the nomination process works right? It won't be officially confirmed until 50 years has passed.

See http://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/

corin_• 12 years ago

That doesn't mean he hasn't officially been nominated, just that there's no official confirmation of his nomination.

ck26• 12 years ago

Everyone has already forgotten Pfc. Manning rotting away for 35 years.

I saw a "free Snowden" sign the other day which I thought was asinine.

swalsh• 12 years ago

Manning released a bunch of documents, but how did he change the world?

dferlemann• 12 years ago

Fuck the world. He's action is true to himself. For that, I respect the guy.

pmorici• 12 years ago

A lot of the civil unrest that happened in the world in the years following the State Department cable releases is suspected to have been loosely caused by revelations in the cables themselves that often had candid descriptions of corruption and other misdeeds by governments.

ck26• 12 years ago

Did you not see the videos? Did you know the US military was doing that?

sigmar• 12 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring

duaneb6• 12 years ago

I'm not sure if either of them deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, but I believe Manning's sentence is reasonable. I'd like to shake his hand, buy him a beer, thank him personally, but it's a decision he made that has severe consequences for a reason. And while I don't like Snowden at all, I think his actions are much more justifiable from an ethical point of view. It's not like terrorists were unaware the NSA was spying before they had proof—the only people being blindfolded were citizens. Manning's actions were more complex and the ramifications were less straightforwardly positive.

ck26• 12 years ago

So by your standard, Martin Luther King Jr. should be getting out of prison just about now?

Manning was a whistlerblower, just like Snowden, with less power and ability for flight to defend themselves.

There was no personal gain ever intended or achieved, yet great personal loss even in the best outcome. They saw something very wrong happening and had little to no way to say "hey there are some incredibly powerful forces in this country doing some very evil things".

The problem is we only treat whistleblowers like traitors legally and Manning's "trial" was a complete scam, zero media coverage allowed on purpose by the government so they could be railroaded.

efdee• 12 years ago

"I'd like to shake his [sic] hand, buy him [sic] a beer, thank him [sic] personally", "but I believe Manning's sentence [of 35 years in prison] is reasonable". My jaw dropped to the floor. Assuming that you want to thank her for doing that thing that landed her in prison, there is nothing you can say that can reconcile those two statements for me.

7952• 12 years ago

There are thousands of people in government and the military who broke the law and defended their actions because they believed them to be morally justifiable. Surely those people should have a similar sentence to Manning?

schenecstasy• 12 years ago

It's going to be tough to buy (him) a beer.

timsally• 12 years ago

Everyone has already forgotten Pfc. Manning rotting away for 35 years.

Please represent the facts accurately. Manning is eligible for release in 7-8 years. I'm willing to make a long bet (http://longbets.org) for $300.00 that Manning does not serve 35 years, or "rot away for 35 years" as you put it. Are you up for it?

gamerdonkey2• 12 years ago

I hate that this nitpicking has become the standard response whenever someone is facing a prison sentence. It utterly belittles the hardship that people like Pfc. Manning actually face, even if it is for 7-8 years in the end.

Additionally, the parole or probation that she faces even after release are still punishment. It's not as though the troubles are suddenly over.

Treating the issue in this way makes it sound like the judge announced the 35 year sentence, slammed a gavel, then looked over to Manning with a wink and a whimsical smile. That's not what happened. 35 years was the sentence, and that is what you should expect to hear in relation to the case, even if it can be reduced with work on the part of the defendant.

kingkawn2• 12 years ago

I would add another $300 to this bet as well in support of your position.

guelo2• 12 years ago

I'd take the bet if you'd be willing to take the position that he'll be released in 7 years. Betting hat he'll be paroled somewhere between 7 and 35 years is silly.

ck26• 12 years ago

After the aggressiveness of the current administration, you think there is a chance the next administration might come along and say "nope, they need to serve the full 35 years".

The sentence is 35 years. They could legally be forced to serve the full 35 for any reason. As far as I am concerned that is the weight being hung around their neck, not the imaginary eight.

And eight years in prison is an insanely long time, don't forget the terrible health care and dangers from other inmates. You can lose all your teeth and die from infections very easily if someone decides to just let you rot.

rdl2• 12 years ago

I'd bet on released at first parole hearing as long as Manning is willing to be "quiet" and just goes on to enjoy life. Which would probably be a desirable outcome, given age. It's pretty easy to make an argument for leniency based on age, irresponsibility-when-committed, and complete life changes (I mean, sex change, the Snowden revelations, by then no troops in Iraq/Afghanistan (hopefully!), stepping down from perpetual war (if for no other reason than economics), and at least one change of President.

mh_yam• 12 years ago

If Obama can receive it, then I don't see why not Snowden.

reuven3• 12 years ago

First of all, a huge number of people are nominated each year for the Nobel Peace Prize. So the fact that Snowden was nominated doesn't really surprise me; I'm guessing that many activists from around the world are nominated.

The list of who can nominate is somewhat restricted -- but given that any member of any parliament, or any social-science professor at any university, can nominate someone, that doesn't strike me as a very high barrier to entry.

The bigger question, in my mind, is whether Snowden contributed to world peace. Yes, he clearly unveiled all sorts of schemes that the NSA had. It's a good thing for democracy that he did such things; it's clear that the US government was doing things that it claimed not to be doing, and that US and foreign citizens alike were rather upset to hear.

So yes, I'm personally glad to hear that these things were unveiled.

However, did this really contribute to world peace? Is the world a less violent place as a result? You could make the argument that it actually is more dangerous in the world, because the US is less able to spy on people. I'm not sure if that's the case, but it's not a totally crazy argument.

tete• 12 years ago

Well, I guess since even Barack Obama, a president who spreads hatred by not abolishing torture, not ending wars, supporting assassinations, etc. won the Nobel Peace Prize a lot of things are counted.

Since the US obviously fights many secret wars and considers everyone but UK; Canada and Australia their enemy unveiling the fact that there are secret wars fought way more intensely than we knew before it is the only possible first step to end it.

It at least makes more sense to me than destroying a part of (mostly broken or expired) nuclear weapons. I don't think that the presence or absence of nuclear weapon will ever be a reason for war, maybe a pretense, but that's all.

reuven3• 12 years ago

I actually think that Obama's generally an OK president. (Not that I agree with many of his policies, including those having to do with Guantanamo and drones, mind you.)

But I still think it was kind of weird for him to get the Nobel Peace Prize. At the very least, it strikes me as way premature.

sdaityari• 12 years ago

Wouldn't it be ironical if he wins the Nobel just a few years after Obama?

sleepyK• 12 years ago

Wow. The ability of people to only see what they want to see is amazing.

So Obama deserved a Nobel Peace prize for running a successful electoral campaign, but Edward Snowden doesn't deserve one for making one of the largest exposés of compromises of individual freedom in the history of the world.

Bravo, Americans.

wanda• 12 years ago

Nobel peace prize =! TIME person of the year

cb_ru• 12 years ago

Let's have a look at how the Norwegian Nobel Committee works, that is, the people in charge of selecting the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize. Currently, the committee is made up of five members, who have to represent the political parties of the Norwegian Parliament. Here is the list of these members :

Mr Jagland (for 4 years) Mrs Kullmann Five (10 years) Mrs Ytterhorn (13 years) Mrs Reiss-Andersen (2 years) Mr Stalsett (1 year)

Jagland has been a member of the Nobel Committee since 2009. The same year, he was elected Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Note that Norway is part of the Council of Europe, but not of the European Union. Jagland is in favor of the EU, although Norwegian people have voted against joining the EU two times.

All of the other members are politicians from national parties. According to Wikipedia, Mrs Kullmann Five is also member of the Board of Directors of Statoil, an oil company which is the largest company in Norway. Mrs Reiss-Andersen is a lawyer, and she has written two novels. Mr Stalsett is the Protestant bishop in Oslo.

As we can see, the committee is not a group of international law experts, famous scientists or peace activists. The truth is, it seems the five members of the committee do not have the right profile to be responsible for one of the most important international awards in the world.

In fact, an additional person helps the committee to make decisions. Geir Lundestad is the director of the Nobel Institute and has been the "secretary" of the Norwegian Nobel Committee since 1990. He was a researcher in charge of international relations at Harvard for three years, and a researcher at the Woodrow Wilson Center, which is the eleventh biggest think tank in the world (according to the Go-To think tank ranking) with famous members like Hillary Clinton and Arne Duncan. Then, in 1990, Geir Lundestad came back to Norway and became the new secretary of the Nobel Committee, and went on for 23 years.

The bottom line is that Geir Lundestad is the real decision-maker. This guy calls the shots, and he will of course not choose Edward Snowden as the next Nobel Peace Prize.

saosebastiao• 12 years ago

Well it certainly would say something about the value of the NPP if one winner was forced into refugee status in one of the worst human rights violating countries because he couldnt get a fair trial from another NPP winner.

callesgg• 12 years ago

I partly think the peace is like getting a bucket of piss since the time obama got it.

philwelch• 12 years ago

Obama? Try Arafat or Kissinger.

kingkawn2• 12 years ago

Barack and him will have a good chat at the next nobel winner bbq

staunch• 12 years ago

Ah yes, the BBQ is always so delicious at The Annual Nobel Winner Chicken Dinner.

etiam• 12 years ago

I was disappointed he didn't win in 2013. If I remember my reading of the rules correctly the members of the Nobel Committee could still have nominated at the point when it was clear what he was revealing and how. Seems like the obvious choice by far for last year.

As a relatively minor side benefit, Snowden winning the Peace Prize would be an elegant rebuke to the rulers in the Sixth Eye of Five Eyes - Nobel's birth country of Sweden. I'd like to see that.

There are many people that would be eminently eligible to share a Nobel Peace Prize with this sort of motivation though. Only two slots left for the sharing... Bill Binney and Tom Drake? John Kiriakou? Who are the other strong contenders?

blisterpeanuts2• 12 years ago

Hear, hear. I would love to see him get the Nobel. I think history will look kindly at Mr. Snowden, while the NSA's activities will be vilified -- assuming we are allowed to learn about those activities and those of us speaking out (or just texting each other about it) aren't fired, denied tenure, or otherwise removed from public view in the Brave New World of total surveillance.

mironathetin• 12 years ago

That is a great way to make Snowdens life a little safer.

richardlblair• 12 years ago

How interesting. If he wins, he will be obtaining the same award as Obama. That just seems so ironic. You win the same award as the guy who has lied about what the NSA is doing, and what he is willing to do about it.

codex• 12 years ago

Given that Snowden has undermined Pax Americana, I find this nomination surprising.

cordite• 12 years ago

What does the peace prize even mean?

PythonicAlpha• 12 years ago

He will not get it. Since the real kings of the world will prevent it.

They will provide, that more likely a terrorist or mass-murder will get it. Or even somebody that orders unethical kills of people by drones.

jabits• 12 years ago

Here, Here! In the end, more knowledge will lead to more peace. It sounds hokey, but clandestine infinite historical data storage can only end in disaster.

lechevalierd3on2• 12 years ago

What kind of message would it send to the world if the US gouvernement was still trying to put in jail a Nobel peace prize ?

collyw• 12 years ago

It's a shame Obama devalued the prize by accepting a it.

Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel peace prize

Related Stories