Peace prize for Ardern?

Ardern has not just touched the right chord with most New Zealanders her leadership has been recognised around the world.

This has lead to calls to consider her for the Nobel Peace prize, and a petition promoting it.

Nobel Peace Prize for Jacinda Ardern – Prix Nobel de la Paix pour Jacinda Ardern

Following the tragic events of Christchurch and the adequate, open and peaceful response of New Zealand Premier Jacinda Ardern, we wish to propose her as the recipient of the upcoming Nobel Peace Prize.

Suite aux événements tragiques de Christchurch et la réponse adéquate, ouverte et pacifique de Jacinda Ardern, première ministre de la Nouvelle-Zélande, nous souhaitons la proposer comme récipiendaire du prochain Nobel de la Paix.

I generally think that the power of petitions has been greatly diminished due to the easy of staring one – there seems to be a new one every five minutes. They are often little more than PR exercises, contact harvesting campaigns, and activist fodder.

There has only been a modest response to this petition so far – but I think this could have some merit.

This sentiment is shared by others.

Newshub:  Call for Jacinda Ardern to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize

The Muslim community is saying she’s been a leader like no other, paying tribute to her at the call to prayer.

Khaled Amlah said: “She is an amazing lady and I think she exceeded everyone’s expectations.”

Tareq Talahma added: “I think it’s how she appeared in an organic way, she didn’t overplay it, she was acting as a human being.”

“We would like to nominate her for a Nobel Prize, she is really a kind of model that we need to follow,” Talahma said.

indy100:  The world is calling for Jacinda Ardern to get the Nobel Peace Prize, here’s 7 reasons why she should

The prize is given to people who have demonstrated exceptional service to the world, and who:

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

Many people feel that Ardern’s actions after the tragedy warrant such an accolade.

Ardern would only qualify in “the best work for fraternity between nations” but could be justified for that.

Should Jacinda Ardern be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? 

Here are 7 reasons why the answer is YES!

  1. She led the charge on condemning white nationalist terrorism
  2. She redefined the way we should be speaking about tragedy by shifting the global focus from the culprit to the victim
  3. Ardern unequivocally supported New Zealand’s Muslim community following the tragedy in more than just ‘thoughts and prayers’
  4. Her progressive, decisive politics (When a crisis occurred as a direct result of military-grade guns, she took swift action and banned them)
  5. She isn’t afraid to call out big corporations for their part in allowing dangerous content online
  6. Ardern has a political history of inclusiveness
  7. She has a history of speaking out against injustice

There’s no doubt that Ardern set a new standard with the example she set in dealing with the horrific act and it’s aftermath. I have no idea whether what she has done so far might qualify her for a Nobel prize, but they have awarded them for much less (for example Obama).

She must at least be a candidate worthy of consideration.

 

 

North Korea far from a done deal

The celebrations about peace and harmony in Korea was a bit premature.

On May 9th, Trump was asked if he thought that he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize because of his North Korea diplomacy. “Everyone thinks so, but I would never say it”.

North and South Korea have been working together despite Trump’s undiplomatic approach, although the US has contributed through the visit of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who was trying to set up the May meeting between Trump and Kim Yong Un.

But Kim may have thrown a spanner in the works. Nobel may have to put their considerations on hold.

New Yorker: Just How Fragile Is Trump’s North Korea Diplomacy?

The new diplomacy is still fragile. In a surprise announcement, North Korea indefinitely suspended the second round of talks between senior officials from the two Koreas—due to be held at the D.M.Z. on Wednesday. It blamed joint military exercises between South Korean and U.S. military forces. Pyongyang viewed the operation as “a flagrant challenge to the Panmunjom Declaration and an intentional military provocation running counter to the positive political development on the Korean Peninsula,” North Korea’s state-run Central News Agency reported.

The Trump Administration was totally blindsided by the move, just five days after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo returned from his second round of talks with Kim to prepare for the Trump summit. Kim had even told Pompeo that he understood the “need and utility” of continued exercises between two countries with which North Korea is still technically at war, the State Department told reporters. The White House scrambled to clarify and respond.

The impending summit was technically designed to discuss “denuclearization”—a term first used, in 1992, to get around talk of “disarmament,” which North Korea feared would make it sound more vulnerable in a volatile neighborhood. Over the weekend, however, the Trump Administration declared that more than North Korea’s nuclear arsenal will be negotiated in Singapore.

“Denuclearization is absolutely at the core of it, and it means not just the nuclear weapons,” the national-security adviser, John Bolton, told ABC on Sunday. “North Korea’s previously agreed, several times, in fact, to give up its uranium-enrichment and plutonium-reprocessing capabilities. We’ve got the ballistic-missile issues on the table. We’ve got to look at chemical and biological weapons.”

After their meeting last week, Pompeo said that Kim fully understood that the U.S. goal is complete denuclearization. In public, however, North Korea has been ambiguous, at best.

South Koreans know that the Singapore summit is the riskiest U.S. initiative ever undertaken.

And premature celebrations and accolades added to the risks.

In Seoul and along the D.M.Z., South Koreans—both supporters and skeptics of the new diplomacy—told me that they don’t care much about Trump’s motive, as long as it refocusses his energies through the rest of his Presidency. Just six months ago, inflammatory rhetoric threatened to end a truce that has been in place since 1953.

The noisy belligerence produced drastic predictions of a conflagration far costlier than the first Korean War. It could easily produce a quarter-million deaths in Seoul—a city of ten million people just ninety minutes from the D.M.Z.—and a million casualties in all of South Korea, military experts told me. North Korea would almost certainly be harder hit.

The risks of it all turning to custard must still be high, especially if the US pushes too hard and keeps making tough talk public statements.

Another complication is the US walking out of the Iran deal. North Korea would be justified in being sceptical of the strength of any deal with the US – and with Trump, who has dumped on other US deals as well, like the TPPA and NAFTA.

For now, all’s quiet on the northern front. My first stop near the D.M.Z. was an amusement park at the edge of the restricted area that offered kiddie rides. A small shopping mall had a Popeyes and a Sam’s Bagels as well as Korean food outlets. South Korean families were out enjoying the spring sunshine and the tentative peace. At souvenir shops, I bought kitsch D.M.Z. T-shirts and framed pieces of barbed wire cut from the frontier, reminiscent of scraps once sold of the Berlin Wall.

One of my final stops was at the observation post near Paju, where some of the fiercest battles of the Korean War raged. I peered through big binoculars, grounded on posts, at spooky Peace Village, on the other side of the D.M.Z. It’s often referred to as Propaganda Village. It appeared modern, with concrete apartment blocks and buildings and roads. But it is reportedly a shell that provides an illusion of life—largely motionless, like the nearby statue of the country’s first leader.

The sign atop the observation post declared “End of Separation, Beginning of Unification.”

As I left, I thought how it will take big and bold and tangible diplomacy by the American and Korean leaders—a lot more than turning off the propaganda loudspeakers or blowing up a tunnel of doubtful use—to really insure that the D.M.Z. is permanently silent.

It may also take a rethink of Trump/US diplomacy, or lack thereof.

As well as a rethink of what may be worth of a Nobel Peace prize.