This video from England is called Condoleezza Rice Anti-War Protest. Friday 31st March 2006, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
From Kyodo news agency in Japan:
Ex-Finnish President Ahtisaari wins Nobel Peace Prize
Friday 10th October, 07:52 PM JST
OSLO —
Former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari has won the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize for his peace-building and brokering efforts in international conflicts for more than 30 years, including his role in a 2005 accord between Indonesia and rebels in its province of Aceh, the Norwegian Nobel Committee said Friday.
‘‘These efforts have contributed to a more peaceful world and to ‘fraternity between nations’ in Alfred Nobel’s spirit,’’ the committee said in announcing the prize.
Ahtisaari played a significant part in 1989 to 1990 in the establishment of Namibia’s independence, while striving in 1999 and 2005 to 2007 to find a solution to the conflict between Serbia and Kosovo over the latter’s independence, the committee said. Ahtisaari has also tried to help find a peaceful conclusion to the problems in Iraq, it said.
See also here.
Alfred Nobel, though a capitalist, had anti capitalist ideas. Alfred Nobel, though he made lots of money from wars, was a pacifist. Mr Ahtisaari, as a supporter of NATO which has a record of aggressive wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, represents a break with the traditional Finnish policy of neutrality. He also certainly is not “in Alfred Nobel’s spirit.’’ Independence for Kosovo, advocated by Mr Ahtisaari and the US Bush administration, is against the provisions of the United Nations brokered agreemment which ended the 1999 NATO-Yugoslavia war.
People who are demonstrating against NATO‘s wars deserve this prize far more than Mr Ahtisaari does.
Anyway, perhaps one should not expect too much from a prize awarded by the parliament of Norway, a NATO member state.
Finland’s government announced this month that it hopes to conclude a defence cooperation agreement with the United States prior to the US presidential election in November: here.
Dear Kitty. Some blog 
October 10, 2008
12:15
Lund, Sweden
Nobel Committee’s Prize – yet another scandal
***************************************
The choice of Martti Ahtisaari satisfies – even with a broad interpretation – none of the criteria outlined in Alfred Nobel’s will, namely: to contribute to fraternity in the world, to reduce armies and to establish peace congresses – to quote them in the Nobel’s own language of 1895.
Ahtisaari has repeatedly functioned as “peace fixer” for Western power elites. In 1999 he was the envoy who persuaded the Serb state to give in after NATO’s 78 days of bombing, the most brutal event in Europe since 1945, which also lacked a UN Security Council mandate.
He then was appointed as the “architect” of the plan behind the separation of now “independent” Kosovo which, following this bombing, broke off from Serbia. Independent Kosovo is recognized by only 25% of the world’s governments.
So, Ahtisaari is a man who by his “mediations” fully endorses the “peace” brought about by militarist means and international law violations – rather than following the UN norm of “peace by peaceful means.”
The Nobel Committee should, according to Nobel’s will, not necessarily consist of Norwegian parliamentarians. Nobel only stated that those who decided on the Prize should be appointed by the Norwegian Parliament.
Would anyone dream of letting a group of parliamentarians anywhere award the prize in, say, medicine, physics or literature without having the slightest knowledge of the subject or professional background? Yet this is exactly what the Nobel Committee does. None of them have any professional knowledge about the subject of peace.
The Committee has again rewarded one of its politician friends instead of one of the independent candidates of this year, who have truly contributed intellectually, culturally or people-to-people wise to genuine peace.
This is a scandal – one more after Al Gore last year.
http://www.transnational.org/Resources_Treasures/2007/Oberg_NobelPrize2007.html
Those of us who wish for a genuinely peaceful world are being deprived once again of our most important Prize with this year’s decision.
More about Alfred Nobel and how his will is being circumvented here:
http://www.transnational.org/Resources_Nonviolence/2008/Heffermehl_Nobel.html
Jan Oberg
TFF co-founder and director
TFF
– for peace with passion
LikeLike
Counterpunch
October 14, 2008
For Services Rendered
HOW THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WAS WON
by Gregory Elich
The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to former Finnish president Martti
Ahtisaari has been widely hailed in the West, where there has been an
outpouring of praise for the man and his efforts. Generally seen as a
tireless promoter of peace and reconciliation, Ahtisaari has another side
that has not received sufficient attention.
Although his record is long, Ahtisaari’s role in the diplomatic end to
NATO’s 1999 war against Yugoslavia is regarded as the key to his selection.
In praising the man, Nobel committee secretary Geir Lundestad noted, “There
is no alternative to an independent Kosovo.” This baldly political statement
indicates why Ahtisaari’s selection is proving so popular among Western
leaders, and it is Kosovo that shows just whose interests Ahtisaari has
served.
During the 1999 war, NATO’s attacks were having little effect on Yugoslav
forces. Through the use of extensive camouflage and decoys, Yugoslav troops
had managed to emerge largely unscathed by the end NATO’s bombing campaign.
U.S. General Wesley Clark led the NATO campaign, and he pressed military and
diplomatic contacts from other NATO countries for agreement to widen the
scope of bombing. Clark was a strong advocate of bombing civilian targets,
and at one meeting he rose from his chair and banged the table with his
fist, bellowing, “I’ve got to get the maximum violence out of this campaign
– now!” (1) Under Clark’s direction, the air campaign rapidly took on the
character of sustained terror bombing. I saw the effects myself when I was
in Yugoslavia in 1999. Every town I visited had been bombed. Purely
residential areas had been flattened. Cluster bombs struck civilian areas.
Hospitals, schools, apartment buildings, factories, bridges, office
buildings – there was no category of civilian targets that NATO had not seen
fit to hit. It was impossible to avoid the conclusion that NATO’s strategy
was to win its war through terror tactics.
Terror bombing paved the way for final negotiations. It was Yugoslavia’s
misfortune that Boris Yeltsin was the president of Russia at the time. He
selected former prime minister Victor Chernomyrdin to handle negotiations
with Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. Always anxious to please the
U.S., Yeltsin had Chernomyrdin essentially do little more than deliver
NATO’s messages to Milosevic. This approach was not yielding fruit, so
Chernomyrdin suggested to American officials that it would be helpful to
have someone from a non-NATO Western nation join him when he next visited
Belgrade. It was Secretary of State Madeleine Albright who offered the name
of Martti Ahtisaari. Getting the Russians on board with the American
insistence on NATO leading the occupation of Kosovo was the main sticking
point. In the end, Yeltsin, as was his habit, gave the U.S. everything it
wanted. (2)
Ahtisaari recalls that before departing for Belgrade, through “a major
effort we achieved a final communiqué, signed by both the Russians and by
the Americans.” Russian acquiescence, he correctly felt, would push
Milosevic “in a corner.” It was the task of Ahtisaari and Chernomyrdin to
deliver NATO’s final terms, and they visited President Milosevic on June 2.
(3)
Ljubisa Ristic was president of the Yugoslav United Left (JUL), a party
formed from 23 smaller communist and left parties. JUL was closely allied
with the ruling Socialist Party and a member of the governing coalition.
Ristic was also a personal friend of Milosevic’s. He explains what happened
at the June 2 meeting. Ahtisaari opened the meeting by declaring, “We are
not here to discuss or negotiate,” after which Chernomyrdin read aloud the
text of the plan. (4) Ahtisaari says that Milosevic asked about the
possibility of modifying the plan, to which he replied, “No. This is the
best that Viktor and I have managed to do. You have to agree to it in every
part.” (5) Ristic reports that as Milosevic listened to the reading of the
text, he realized that the “Russians and the Europeans had put us in the
hands of the British and the Americans.” Milosevic took the papers and
asked, “What will happen if I do not sign?” In answer, “Ahtisaari made a
gesture on the table,” and then moved aside the flower centerpiece. Then
Ahtisaari said, “Belgrade will be like this table. We will immediately begin
carpet-bombing Belgrade.” Repeating the gesture of sweeping the table,
Ahtisaari threatened, “This is what we will do to Belgrade.” A moment of
silence passed, and then he added, “There will be half a million dead within
a week.” Chernomyrdin’s silence confirmed that the Russian government would
do nothing to discourage carpet-bombing. (6)
The meaning was clear. To refuse the ultimatum would lead to the deaths of
large numbers of civilians and total devastation. President Milosevic
summoned the leaders of the parties in the governing coalition and explained
the situation to them. “A few things are not logical, but the main thing is,
we have no choice. I personally think we should accept…To reject the
document means the destruction of our state and nation.” (7) For Ristic,
acceptance meant one thing: “We had to save the people.” (8) Three weeks
after Ahtisaari and Chernomyrdin delivered NATO’s ultimatum, Yugoslav Prime
Minister Momir Bulatovich explained to both chambers of the Assembly why the
government had accepted terms. “Our country was faced with a threat of total
annihilation. Through diplomatic mediators and through the media, the
aggressors spoke of the future targets to be bombed, including civilian
victims counted in the hundreds of thousands.” (9)
It did not take NATO long to violate the peace agreement that Ahtisaari had
delivered to Milosevic. While NATO dawdled over entering Kosovo, the
secessionist Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) went on a rampage, looting and
burning homes, murdering and expelling thousands of Serbs, Roma, Turks,
Slavic Muslims, Gorans, Egyptians, Croats and pro-Yugoslav Albanians.
Milosevic was livid, and shortly after midnight on June 17, he phoned
Ahtisaari and complained that NATO’s delay in entering Kosovo had allowed
the KLA to threaten the population. “This is not what we agreed,” he said.
(10) It hardly mattered. Once NATO troops entered Kosovo, they did nothing
to deter KLA attacks against the populace. The KLA had unimpeded freedom to
carry out a pogrom. That summer in Yugoslavia, I heard many refugees tell
how attacks had taken place in the presence of NATO troops, who invariably
did nothing. On numerous occasions people were thrown out of their homes,
threatened, their possessions looted and homes burned while NATO soldiers
stood aside and watched.
Ahtisaari’s mission was a success. He “was sensational,” said a senior U.S.
official. Chernomyrdin won praise for remaining silent while Ahtisaari
threatened Milosevic. “Chernomyrdin did great,” an appreciative U.S.
official noted. (11)
The final agreement between Yugoslavia and NATO was spelled out in UN
Security Council Resolution 1244, which was implemented in a one-sided way.
NATO got everything it wanted, but those aspects of the resolution not to
its liking were never implemented. The required demilitarization of the KLA
was a sham, with its members handing in obsolete weapons while retaining
their arsenal. The resolution also called for the return of some Yugoslav
forces to maintain “a presence at Serb patrimonial sites” and at “key border
crossings,” as well as to liaise with international forces. NATO never
permitted that. Most importantly, the resolution affirmed that the political
process of arriving at an agreement on the status of Kosovo would take full
account of the “sovereignty and territorial integrity” of Yugoslavia. (12)
Instead, Western officials did everything possible to undermine that
stipulation.
So pleased were Western leaders with Ahtisaari’s performance in 1999, that
they called upon the man once again when it came time to negotiate a
solution for the province of Kosovo. They saw to it that Ahtisaari was
appointed as special envoy to the UN Secretary General to develop a set of
recommendations for the final status of Kosovo.
U.S. officials were repeatedly promising secessionist Albanian officials in
Kosovo that if negotiations with Serbian officials were to fail, then the
province would be granted independence. This ensured that the Albanian
delegation was unwilling to compromise or engage in serious negotiations.
The Albanians’ maximal demands would be met as long as they could avoid a
negotiated settlement. Ahtisaari’s role was to develop the plan for Kosovo’s
final status that would be implemented if lieu of an agreement. In the end,
secessionist Albanian leaders unilaterally declared independence, which was
quickly followed by U.S. and Western European recognition. Yet much of
Ahtisaari’s plan provided the basis for the agreement that was implemented
between the province and the U.S.
Not surprisingly, Ahtisaari’s plan called for independence. This was to be
supervised by “the international community,” that term that seems always to
mean Western leaders and their interests and excludes the vast majority of
the world’s population. Interestingly, the Ahtisaari plan required that
Kosovo “shall have an open market economy with free competition.” (13)
Already by this point Western officials in Kosovo had overseen the
privatization of much of Kosovo’s socially owned property. Ahtisaari’s
inclusion of the phrase “free competition” appears meant to protect the
interests of Western investors. U.S. officials are never reluctant to push
their own agenda, whatever noble-sounding themes they may trumpet. It may be
recalled that the pre-war Rambouillet plan, drawn up by U.S. officials in
order to sabotage any possibility of a peaceful outcome, required that “the
economy of Kosovo shall function in accordance with free market principles”
and allow for the free movement of international capital. (14)
Kosovo’s independence under Ahtisaari’s plan was be supervised and monitored
by Western officials. Kosovo would be required to prepare its budget in
consultation with the Western-appointed official responsible for managing
the province. The plan called for NATO to maintain its military presence.
There was to be “close cooperation” with the IMF, and in regard to the
privatization of publicly owned entities Kosovo officials were called upon
to “take appropriate measures to implement the relevant international
principles of corporate governance and liberalization.” The governing
Western official would be “the final authority in Kosovo regarding
interpretation” of the plan, and positions would be filled through
appointment by Western officials. (15) Under Ahtisaari-influenced plan as
implemented by the Western powers, Kosovo has less control over its affairs
then it would have had under the plan for full autonomy offered by the
Yugoslav delegation at Rambouillet.
The selection of Martti Ahtisaari for the Nobel Peace Price was a reward for
services rendered. This was a purely political statement, meant to underline
an important principle in international affairs. The same Western nations
that forcibly carved Kosovo from Serbia are vociferously complaining that
independence for South Ossetia and Abkhazia violates international law and
the territorial integrity of Georgia. This year’s Nobel Peace Prize affirms
the lofty principle that it is only the West that will draw and redraw
borders in the manner of 19th-century imperial powers.
Gregory Elich is on the Board of Directors of the Jasenovac Research
Institute and on the Advisory Board of the Korea Truth Commission. He is the
author of the book Strange Liberators: Militarism, Mayhem, and the Pursuit
of Profit.
NOTES
[1] Dana Priest, “The Battle Inside Headquarters: United NATO Front was
Divided Within,” Washington Post, September 21, 1999.
[2] “Getting to the Table,” Newsweek, June 14, 1999.
[3] Interview with Martti Ahtisaari by Riccardo Chiaberge, “Ahtisaari: This
is How I Bent Milosevic,” Corriere della Sera (Milan), July 21, 1999.
[4] Interview with Ljubisa Ristic by Renato Farina, “Why We Serbs Have
Given In,” Il Giornale (Milan), June 7, 1999.
[5] Interview with Martti Ahtisaari by Riccardo Chiaberge, “Ahtisaari: This
is How I Bent Milosevic,” Corriere della Sera (Milan), July 21, 1999.
[6] Interview with Ljubisa Ristic by Renato Farina, “Why We Serbs Have Given
In,” Il Giornale (Milan), June 7, 1999.
[7] Michael Dobbs and Daniel Williams, “For Milosevic, Internal Battle Just
Starting,” Washington Post, June 6, 1999.
[8] Interview with Ljubisa Ristic by Renato Farina, “Why We Serbs Have
Given In,” Il Giornale (Milan), June 7, 1999.
[9] “Yugoslav Prime Minister Momir Bulatovic Address to Both Chambers of
the Assembly of Yugoslavia,” Yugoslav Daily Survey (Belgrade), June 24,
1999.
[10] Geert-Jan Bogaerts, “If Democracy Returns then Milosevic will be
Gone,” De Volkskrant (Amsterdam), June 25, 2008.
[11] “Getting to the Table,” Newsweek, June 14, 1999.
[12] Resolution 1244 (1999), UN Security Council, June 10, 1999.
[13] “Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo Status Settlement,” UN Security
Council S/2007/168/Add.1, March 26, 2007.
[14] “Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo,” February
23, 1999.
[15] “Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo Status Settlement,” UN Security
Council S/2007/168/Add.1, March 26,
2007.http://www.counterpunch.org/elich10142008.html
LikeLike
Pingback: European Union, undeserving Nobel Peace Prize winner | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Edward Snowden deserves Nobel Peace Prize, Norwegian MP’s say | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Bahraini oppressor of women gets businesswomen’s award | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: ‘NATO regime change warmongering caused refugee crisis’, Finland’s Ahtisaari says | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons wins Nobel Peace Prize | Dear Kitty. Some blog