13 replies to this topic

[Dunadan]

http://www.nytimes.c...11CND-NOBE.html

Nobel Peace Prize Awarded to Carter With Criticism of Bush

By THE NEW YORK TIMES

The 2002 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded today to former President Jimmy Carter.

Noting that Mr. Carter had devoted decades of his life to the peaceful resolution of international conflicts, the chairman of the committee that awards the prize said that Mr. Carter's selection "must be interpreted as a criticism of the present U.S. administration."

Advertisement




Mr. Carter, who brokered the 1978 Camp David peace accord between Israel and Egypt and has been involved in efforts to ease conflicts from North Korea to Haiti since leaving the White House, was chosen from a record field of 156 candidates that were said to have included President Bush, former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York and President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan.

"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2002 to Jimmy Carter 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," the committee said in its announcement.

"In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international cooperation based on international law, respect for human rights and economic development."

But comments by the committee's chairman, Gunnar Berge, were expected to generate as much interest as Mr. Carter's selection.

In remarks to reporters after the announcement, Mr. Berge said that Mr. Carter had been nominated for the peace prize "many, many times" but that a major reason that he was finally selected was that he represented a counterpoint to the militancy of President Bush.

"I hope it will help strengthen what Carter has to say," said Mr. Berge. "He has a more moderate point of view than the sitting administration."
Mr. Berge said the Bush administration seemed all too willing to act unilaterally against Iraq. "They should be sticking more to principles of mediation and international cooperation," he said.


e sad
da li je opravdano davati Nobelovu nagradu za mir u cilju uticanja na postojece dogadjaje ili je dati onome ko se stvarno najvishe zalozio za mir u protekloj godini.
i u koliko je sluchajeva ova nagrada (za mir) zaista otishla u prave ruke?

_________________
My bed is pulling me, gravity, Daysleeper...

[ Izmena poruke: DUNADAN na dan 2002-10-12 01:35 ]

[Sioran]

mozda ce ovo ljudi doziveti kao vaznije:

...The Columbia Center for the Decision Sciences (CDS) congratulates Daniel
Kahneman of Princeton University and Vernon Smith of George Mason University
for winning this year's Nobel prize in economics. The Royal Swedish Academy
of Sciences cited Kahneman "for having integrated insights from
psychological research into economic science, especially concerning human
judgment and decision-making under uncertainty." Kahneman's work (in
collaboration with the late Amos Tversky) "inspired a new generation of
researchers in economics and finance to enrich economic theory using
insights from cognitive psychology into intrinsic human motivation." Daniel
Kahneman was the inaugural speaker in the Center for the Decision Sciences
Speaker Series in the fall of 2000...

sta reci nego GO PSYCH GO!

[Dunadan]

hm hm
nisam ni sumnjala da ce negde vec uchachkati psihologiju :smile:
shto se mene tiche, jedine relevantne nagrade su za fundamentalne stvari; fiziku, hemiju i fiziologiju tj medicinu.

[teknokrat]

Sioran:
sta reci nego GO PSYCH GO! 

???????
Mozda: GO PSYCHOS GO :mad:

[Sioran]

ne, go psych, go, kao sto sam i rekla.

za slucaj da nisi shvatio iz teksta, daniel kahneman je kognitivni psiholog (i ne prvi koji je dobio nobelovu nagradu) ciji rad dobro poznajem. sta ima psihoticno u tome da je neko ponosan na svoju oblast ti treba sa sobom da razjanis.

[Dunadan]

>>sta ima psihoticno u tome da je neko ponosan na svoju oblast ti treba sa sobom da razjanis.<<

nema nishta
samo shto sam postavila ovaj topic iz potpuno drugih razloga.
mozda tema nije dovoljno interesantna.
:sad:
ajde mozemo i o Nobelovoj nagradi za ekonomiju.
koliko sam shvatila Kahneman je dobio za primenjenu psihologiju, ali mi nije jasno (poshto nisam imala vremena da prochitam ceo pdf fajl koji se nalazi na sajtu a i sumnjam da bi mi text sa toliko struchnih izraza i to na engleskom uopshte pomogao da shvatim) na koji nachin i kako.

ako te ne mrzi je l moze jedan kratak size njegovog rada.
ako te mrzi onda nikom nishta :smile:

pozD

[teknokrat]

Dunadan, izvini za skretanje teme - tema koju si postavila je odlicna. Vracam se ovamo cim ugrabim malo vremena.

Apropo PSYCH/OS, bila je to sala (ocito neuspela).

[Sioran]

dunadan,

izvini: pre svega zbog kretanja teme; moj komentar (re: psychos) se nije odnosio na tebe.

sto se teme tice - da li je ispravno dati nobelovu nagradu nekom da bi se uticalo na politiku itd, tesko mi je da se odlucim. u principu kada bi dodeljivanje nagrade bilo delotvorno, i kada bih mogla u svakoj situaciji da se oslonim na procene nekakve svedske akademije nauka, onda bih to podrzavala. meni se ovako cini da je neto rezultat toga ne promena americke politike vec promena znacenja nobelove nagrade za mir (koje je sve manje pitanje zasluga, a vise pitanje politicke intervencije). znaci sve u svemu odgovor je (tentatively): ne.

sto se tice daniela kahnemana mogu da skiciram nesto u par recenica (za par minuta izlazim) pa cu razviti ako te zanima:

da bi bilo kakva nauka u ekonomiji bila moguce, potreban je odredjen model coveka. standardni model koji koriste ekonomisti je covek koji je beskonacno sebican (uvek hoce sto je moguce vise za sebe), beskonacno racionalan (uvek moze da izracuna sta je najbolje za njega) i ima beskonacnu snagu volje (kad je nesto dobro za njega znace kako da to i ostvari) - postoje jos neke pretpostavke, ali da ne gusim sada, ovo je neki visi-undegrad. nivo. daniel kahneman i amos tversky su sredinom sedamdesetih poceli da dokumentuju niz odstupanja u ljudskom ponasanju koje su (potencijalno) relevantna za ekonomsku teoriju (identifikovali su uticaj raznih naoko beznacajnih faktora na ljudske odluke). tih odstupanja (od gore navedenih pretpostavki) ima dosta, i njih cu navesti kasnije. mislim da je poenta nagrade u realizaciji da su oni (ovaj drugi je posle umro, ovog tipa sa masona ne poznajem) doveli u pitanje pretpostavke discipline na nacin koji je potencijalno produktivan.

[teknokrat]

Mislim da na Zapadu (uslovno receno) Bushovu politiku smeju da kritikuju jedino oni koji su na neki nacin nezavisni. Zan Kretjen, koji je ionako zavrsio karijeru, Nelson Mandela koji ima koliko ono godina (90?) ili Karter (slicno, out of politics a bogami i pri kraju zivotnog puta). Samo takvi imaju hrabrosti da se suprotstave politici ekstremnog nepostenja koju vodi Mr Zbun (i ostali naftni derivati). Naravno, oni ce izgurati svoje, jer nasilje funkcionise i kad je bilo da su divlji & nasilni ustuknuli pred pitomima i poslusnima. Nikad.

[sonja]

Published on Friday, October 18, 2002 by CommonDreams.org
Carter's Less-Known Legacy
by Stephen Zunes

With all the liberal columnists singing the praises of Jimmy Carter in honor of his winning the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, I’d like to contribute a somewhat dissident note. Only somewhat, however. I am very pleased Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize and believe it is well deserved. I also enjoyed the subtle send-up by the Nobel committee and the not-so-subtle criticism by the committee’s chairman in contrasting this former American president with the current American president.

However, though criticism of Carter’s presidency has often centered upon his alleged weak governing, the sad truth was that his administration was a disaster when it came to the areas for which he is now best known: peace, international law and human rights.

President Carter, who came to office in early 1977, not long after Indonesia invaded and annexed the tiny island nation of East Timor, increased military aid to the Indonesian dictatorship by 80%. This equipment including OV-10 Bronco counter-insurgency aircraft that was crucial in the rounding up of much of the country’s civilian population into concentration camps. Most of the 200,000 East Timorese deaths as a result of Indonesia’s occupation took place during the Carter Administration, in large part as a result of this military aid.

Carter also dramatically increased military aid to the Moroccan government of King Hassan II, whose forces invaded its southern neighbor, the desert nation of Western Sahara, barely a year before the former Georgia governor assumed office. Carter fought Congress to restore military aid to Turkey that had been suspended after their armed forces seized the northern third of the Republic of Cyprus in 1974. Carter promised that the resumption of aid would give Turkey the flexibility to withdraw. Turkish occupation forces remain there to this day.

All three of these U.S. allies were in violation of repeated demands by the UN Security Council that they unconditionally withdraw from these occupied territories.

Under President Carter, the United States vetoed consecutive UN Security Council resolutions to impose sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa. Ignoring calls from the democratic South African opposition to impose such pressure, Carter took the line of American corporate interests by claiming U.S. investments – including such items as computers and trucks for the South African police and military – somehow supported the cause of racial justice and majority rule. (Barely five years after Carter left office, the United States imposed sanctions against South Africa by huge bipartisan Congressional majorities and no longer vetoed similar UN efforts.)

When the people of the African country then known as Zaire rebelled against their brutal and corrupt dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, Carter ordered the U.S. air force to fly in Moroccan troops to help crush the popular uprising and save the regime.

Carter sent military aid to the Islamic fundamentalist mujahadeen to fight the leftist government in Afghanistan in the full knowledge that it could prompt a Soviet invasion. According to his National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, it was hoped that by forcing the Soviets into such a counter-insurgency war would weaken America’s superpower rival. This decision, however, not only destroyed much of Afghanistan, but the entire world is feeling the ramifications to this day.

As president, Carter opposed Palestinian statehood, refused to even meet with Palestinian leaders, and dramatically increased military aid to the right-wing Israeli government of Menachem Begin. When Israel violated an annex to the Camp David Accords by resuming construction of illegal settlements on the occupied West Bank, Carter refused to enforce the treaty despite being its guarantor. Carter also dramatically increased military aid to the increasingly repressive Egyptian regime of Anwar Sadat.

Meanwhile, Carter ordered that the evidence his administration had acquired of a joint South African-Israeli nuclear test be covered up to protect their governments from international outrage.

In May 1980, pro-democracy protestors seized the center of the South Korean city of Kwangju, challenging the U.S.- backed dictatorship of Chun Doo Hwan. Carter ordered the release of South Korean troops under U.S. command at the request of the dictator in order for them to re-take the city for the regime, massacring thousands. (When former South Korean dictator Syngman Rhee made a similar request that his troops be released from U.S. command two decades earlier, President Dwight Eisenhower refused.)

President Carter ignored pleas from Salvadoran archbishop Oscar Romero to not send arms and advisors to the junta whose forces were massacring many hundreds of peasant leaders, trade unionists, priests, human rights workers and other dissidents. Carter continued his military support of the junta even after Romero himself was assassinated while saying Mass, a shooting carried out under the orders of a top Salvadoran general. One of Carter’s last acts as president was to approve a record level of arms transfers to the junta just weeks after Salvadoran troops – under orders from high-ranking officers – raped and murdered four American churchwomen.

Carter was the president who enacted Presidential Directive 59, which authorized American strategic forces to switch to a counterforce strategy, targeting nuclear weapons in their silos, indicating a dangerous shift in nuclear policy from deterrence to one of a first-strike.

He supported the Shah of Iran to the end, even as the dictator ordered his forces to fire onto thousands of unarmed demonstrators. Carter dismissed Iranian anger at the 1953 U.S.-led overthrow of the country’s constitutional government by saying that it was "ancient history," a particular ironic comment in reference to a 4000-year old civilization.

Carter was also a strong supporter of Philippine dictator Fernando Marcos, Pakistani General Zia al Huq, Saudi King Faud and many other dictators. He blocked human rights legislation initiated by then-Congressman Tom Harkin and others. He increased U.S. military spending, militarized the Indian Ocean, and withdrew the SALT II Treaty from the Senate before they even took a vote.

It is certainly true that Jimmy Carter has made many positive contributions to the world since leaving the presidency. He did not simply join corporate boards like his predecessor Gerald Ford. Most leaders – as they have gotten older and more experienced in foreign affairs – have tended to become less idealistic and more prone to support military solutions to conflict. Carter, however, has gone in the opposite direction. And there were undoubtedly some positive achievements even while he was president for which we should also be grateful.

At the same time, we should not whitewash the past.

Stephen Zunes is an associate professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco

[Jr]

Nagrada je otisla poslednjem Americkom predsjedniku koji nije imao "svoj" rat.

[Visoke platforme]

Pod cijom lupom je islamski fundamentalizam izmarsirao na svetsku politicku scenu.

[Jr]

Visoke platforme:
Pod cijom lupom je islamski fundamentalizam izmarsirao na svetsku politicku scenu.

Mislis da ga je ygayio a ne pregovarao do svega ovoga ne bi doslo?

P.S. Nemo te me uzimat za ozbiljno... ja sam plaka prije 22 godine kad je on izgubio...

[Visoke platforme]

I ja sam pre dvadeset godina posmatrao drugacije. Ali sad vidim da je svaki "dovish" predsednik velesile stvorio vise glavobolje nego koristi. Ako ove leve mozemo bar nominativno da svrstamo pod dove, od Johnsona (ma od JFK ili cak i od Trummana) na ovamo svaki je samo gomilao probleme i tenzije.



[ Izmena poruke: Visoke platforme na dan 2002-11-12 15:46 ]