←back to thread

516 points pykello | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.313s | source
Show context
weli ◴[] No.45536827[source]
Don't get me wrong. She has firmly opposed maduro and is a beacon of hope for many in Venezuela but she hasn't accomplished anything meaningful yet? She is just a career politician that just happens to be in the opposition of the venezuelan goverment when Maduro (a dictator) is in power. But she hasn't done anything extraordinary to merit the award.
replies(15): >>45536901 #>>45536915 #>>45537006 #>>45537046 #>>45537155 #>>45537285 #>>45537310 #>>45537718 #>>45537793 #>>45537965 #>>45537999 #>>45539036 #>>45539887 #>>45540563 #>>45540740 #
KingMob ◴[] No.45537155[source]
That reminds me a bit of former winner Aung San Suu Kyi, who got the prize in 1991, while not having done or said that much at the time of the award, other than be a political prisoner.

I respect that she opposed the Burmese military junta most of her life, but then a year after coming to power in 2015, she defended the military against charges of complicity in the Rohingya genocide to preserve her fragile government.

Personally, I think the Peace Prize shouldn't go to politicians at all.

replies(1): >>45537576 #
SanjayMehta ◴[] No.45537576[source]
Aung San Suu Kyi was just another "compliant native" similar to those the British installed prior to leaving the colonies.

The roadmap was laid out by Cecil Rhodes in his letters and will and extensively documented in "The Secret Society" by Robin Brown.

It's quite fascinating to see their networks with the benefit of hindsight. For example, Mountbatten installed Nehru as the first unelected PM of India.

Aung San Suu Kyi was educated in New Delhi India and during that time, she lived in Nehru's home.

replies(2): >>45538382 #>>45541293 #
selimthegrim ◴[] No.45538382[source]
Was Sardar Patel or Maulana Azad taking their orders too?
replies(1): >>45539672 #
1. SanjayMehta ◴[] No.45539672[source]
Patel was under the thumb of Gandhi.

Gandhi is the one who made Patel step aside in favour of Nehru, despite the latter losing the April 1946 election for the role Congress president; the understanding with the British was that the President of the Congress would be the first PM.

Gandhi had a history of appeasement and compliance (see "The South African Gandhi" by Vahed and Desai) to the British, so Patel could be considered compromised indirectly. Personally I don't believe Patel was a stooge, just a victim of the personality cult around Gandhi.

As for "Azad" - real name Abul Kalam Ghulam Muhiyuddin - I have not looked into his history.