The recent Nobel Peace Prize award has garnered all kinds of reactions from every corner of the globe. From the highest circles of socio-political commentary down to grassroots-level netizens, shouts of praise and cries of indignation have flooded nearly every media outlet imaginable.
Amidst the swell of this reaction, a write-up was done in the Communique, a student publication at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs, which reflected some of the breadth of this spectrum through the voices of globally-minded Columbia graduate students from China, the Chinese diaspora, and the West. Read more on the Communique article here:
Particularly as part of this article features a quote from one of your humble Global Centers blog authors, I encourage you to keep as objective a viewpoint as possible in considering the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize results. Was this decision non-partisan? To what degree do we need to contextualize our understanding in terms of macro-level factors and polarized interests?
An important thing to remember in this evaluation is the actual purpose of the Prize. According to its website, the Nobel Peace Prize seeks to award: “...the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”. How well does this year’s selection reflect this mission? More emphatically, does this year’s selection actually further its mission of encouraging “fraternity between nations” and “promotion of peace congresses”?
Thanks to the Communique and Thomas Chen for allowing the inclusion of their article.