Giải Hòa Bình theo di chúc thống hối củaAlfred Nobel, cha đẻ của cốt mìn, giầu có nhờ "phát minh sản phẩm "giết người" sẽ được trao cho "những ai nỗ lực nhiều nhất hay tốt nhất nối kết tình anh em giữa các quốc gia, hủy bỏ hoặc giảm thiểu quân đội thường trực và gìn giữ và xiển dương những hội nghị Hòa Bình" ( the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”) (Excerpt from the will of Alfred Nobel)
Nhưng nó lại thường trao cho những tên đại ác chính trị gia bất lương và bất nhân như gần nhất đây là Obama. và vớ vẩn cho thủ đoạn chính trị, như mới nhất đây là cô bé Malala Yousafzai (Hồi Quốc) tranh đấu quyền giáo dục cho phụ nữ, và ông Kailash Satyarthi (Ấn Độ) đấu tranh cho quyền trẻ em. Cả hai đều chẳng dính gì đến "hòa bình" nguyện vọng của A. Nobel, dù họ có nỗ lực đóng góp cho xã hội về mặt nhân quyền. Cũng coi như tạm được so với Obama, tên vi phạm nhân quyền, dân quyền và sát nhân hàng loạt, đơn phương tấn công dội bom 7 quốc gia tàn sát hàng chục ngàn thường dân trẻ em phụ nữ vô tội! Và vẫn đang tiếp diễn!!!
Nhưng hơn hẳn hai người Malala Yousafzai (Hồi Quốc) Kailash Satyarthi trong đóng góp cho nhân quyền con người ở cả chiều sâu lẫn kích thước là Edward Snowden - thì hội đồng Nobel không sờ đến! Sao vậy? Nhìn lại hai nhân vật đoạt giải xem sao- họ là những người "may mắn" trùng hợp với tuyên truyền của Âu Mỹ- chống lại nhà nước của họ - chính đáng- nhưng may mắn xứ sở nhà nước của họ đang là vùng trái độn có lợi cho tuyên truyền của Âu Mỹ. Malala Yousafzai, giúp cho Âu Mỹ CHÍNH ĐÁNG HÓA HÀNH ĐỘNG CAN THIỆP vào KHU VỰC Pak/Afhan/India. Cho nên dù là hai người nhận chung, nhưng Malala Yousafzai được nhắc nhở tuyên dương nhiều nhất, đọc diễn văn tại cái cơ quan ,cũng thổ tả, LHQ tay sai Âu Mỹ!
Còn Edwrad Snowden, hành động chính đáng, chống lại tội phạm nhà nước, nhưng là nước Mỹ và đồng minh Âu Châu, cho nên...không được ca ngợi, LHQ không bênh vực dù có cả một ủy ban Nhân quyền chình ình ở trong đó!
Còn bà Malalai Joya Afganistan nữa, cũng chống bạo quyền và Taliban, kêu gọi quyền phụ nữ và kêu gọi hòa bình và phản đối chiến tranh, nhưng kẹt là chiến tranh do nhà nước Âu Mỹ cùng bọn tay sai nhà nước Afganistan tiến hành, thì... cũng bị bỏ quên, bị ám sát hụt!!! Nhân Chủ cũng đã có phẩm bình Malala Yousafzai, Nhà vận Động Nhân Quyền Trẻ
Xét theo di chúc của Nobel, chỉ có bà Malalai Joya Afganistan đạt tiêu chuẩn đúng nhất. Còn Edward Snowden phải có một giải cao quí khác cho những người như Anh, như Chelsea Manning- nhưng cả hai người này lại là kẻ thù đố kị của ủy ban Nobel và các nhà nước Âu Mỹ!
Tuy nhiên cũng chúc mừng cho hai người Malala Yousafzai và Kailash Satyarthi, cái giải dơ bẩn, nhưng ít ra trong hoàn cảnh Pakistan và Ấn Độ, mỗi người cũng được 500 ngàn Mỹ Kim để tiếp tực làm việc được thoải mái hơn, cũng xứng đáng công sức tấm lòng của họ với trẻ em và phụ nữ.
Sự kiện này, nó cho thấy rõ hơn bản chất gian trá của các định chế tập quyền nhà nước và quốc tế. Điều mà tờ báo Do Thái tiến bộ như Haaretz có thắc mắc mỉa mai, nhưng không dám vạch thẳng vấn đề từ ngay viêc Kissinger, Obama nhận giải.
Quyền lực Chính Trị của Nhà Nước đã biến hẳn một điều tốt đẹp của Alfred Nobel thành phương tiện chính trị gian manh bịp bợm cho quyền lực chiến tranh giết người phi nhân bản của tập đoàn đại bản và nhà nước.
Vấn đề là liệu nhận thức cỡ như Snowden có dám coi thường giải 1 triệu Mỹ Kim này mà tố cáo và nhổ toẹt vào nó, như Jean Paul Sartre đã từng nhổ toẹt với giải Nobel Văn chương (dù với lý do khác của riêng JPSartre xem phụ bản phía dưới)? Chúng ta cần có một người xứng đáng giải Nobel Hòa Bình nhưng từ chối nhổ toẹt vào nó, để tẩy rửa lấy lại sự trong sáng của giải theo đúng ý nguyện tốt đẹp cao cả của Alfred Nobel.
Nhanchu
=====
What about a Nobel Peace Prize for Edward Snowden?
At the risk of his personal freedom and, some would say, his life, Snowden exposed his government’s paradigm reversal, which took place far from the public’s eye.
A Pakistani teenage girl received the highest honor that Western countries can award a person who has made an extraordinary contribution to society. Several days ago, 17-year-old Malala Yousafzai was summonsed from her classroom in the middle of chemistry class at Edgbaston High School for Girls in Birmingham to be informed that she had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her “heroic struggle,” under particularly difficult circumstances, for Pakistani girls’ right to an education.
We can guess that Yousafzai is very glad, even if I guess that she was not all that surprised. Her relationship with the West began early, and on the right foot. At 11 years old, she was writing a blog for the BBC describing what life under Taliban rule was like for a smart girl dreaming of becoming a physician. As the loyal daughter of her father Ziauddin Yousafzai, who runs a network of schools, Malala wanted very much to use her right to an education.
Since being saved miraculously from an assassination attempt in 2012, when a Taliban operative shot her at close range, she has become a well-known international symbol of the struggle for women’s education. She has been awarded many prizes in recent years, and recently the United Nations declared her birthday Malala Day in recognition of her work.
Even if Malala is an exceptional and praiseworthy young woman, one cannot ignore the fact that her values match those of the West, and the timing of her receiving the Nobel Peace Prize serves the West’s war on the fanatical and bloodthirsty components of Islam. The Norwegian Nobel Committee honored Yousafzai not only for her struggle, but also because she worked against her own government at the risk of her personal liberty and her life.
Edward Snowden, former contract employee for the United States National Security Agency, is another young person who has worked for the exposure and rectification of his government’s injustices. His professional and financial future were assured, and had he chosen to use his expertise in information technology, he would have fitted comfortably into the private labor market. But Snowden gave the Washington Post and the Guardian, openly, classified information about PRISM, a secret mass electronic surveillance data mining program of the American administration that collected enormous amounts of information about users from nine large Internet companies.
Snowden’s revelations exposed the secret handshake between the American administration and information companies such as Google, Facebook and Apple, together with the practical techniques of the government’s supervision and surveillance of its citizens. The journalists who publicized the documents were awarded the Pulitzer Prize, while Snowden received temporary asylum in Russia.
At the risk of his personal freedom and, some would say, his life, Snowden exposed his government’s paradigm reversal, which took place far from the public’s eye: If surveillance of criminal suspects was once supported by an appropriate court order after having gone through a legal proceeding, in post-9/11 America random data about citizens was being collected to identify suspicious patterns of behavior to stop a crime before it took place.
The essence of the Nobel Peace Prize might be defined as the outline of a path, and not only as a way to perpetuate existing values. Awarding it to Snowden, for example, would have ensured a sharp confrontation between the prize committee and the U.S. government. Yet at the same time it would have signaled to the countries of the West that they were slowly becoming societies that kept populations and individuals under supervision and surveillance, in chilling contradiction of their declared democratic spirit.
Sartre on the Nobel Prize
I deeply regret the fact that the incident has become something of a scandal: a prize was awarded, and I refused it. It happened entirely because I was not informed soon enough of what was under way. When I read in the October 15 Figaro littéraire, in the Swedish correspondent’s column, that the choice of the Swedish Academy was tending toward me, but that it had not yet been determined, I supposed that by writing a letter to the Academy, which I sent off the following day, I could make matters clear and that there would be no further discussion.
I was not aware at the time that the Nobel Prize is awarded without consulting the opinion of the recipient, and I believed there was time to prevent this from happening. But I now understand that when the Swedish Academy has made a decision it cannot subsequently revoke it.
My reasons for refusing the prize concern neither the Swedish Academy nor the Nobel Prize in itself, as I explained in my letter to the Academy. In it, I alluded to two kinds of reasons: personal and objective.
The personal reasons are these: my refusal is not an impulsive gesture, I have always declined official honors. In 1945, after the war, when I was offered the Legion of Honor, I refused it, although I was sympathetic to the government. Similarly, I have never sought to enter the Collège de France, as several of my friends suggested.
This attitude is based on my conception of the writer’s enterprise. A writer who adopts political, social, or literary positions must act only with the means that are his own—that is, the written word. All the honors he may receive expose his readers to a pressure I do not consider desirable. If I sign myself Jean-Paul Sartre it is not the same thing as if I sign myself Jean-Paul Sartre, Nobel Prizewinner.
The writer who accepts an honor of this kind involves as well as himself the association or institution which has honored him. My sympathies for the Venezuelan revolutionists commit only myself, while if Jean-Paul Sartre the Nobel laureate champions the Venezuelan resistance, he also commits the entire Nobel Prize as an institution.
The writer must therefore refuse to let himself be transformed into an institution, even if this occurs under the most honorable circumstances, as in the present case.
This attitude is of course entirely my own, and contains no criticism of those who have already been awarded the prize. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for several of the laureates whom I have the honor to know.
My objective reasons are as follows: The only battle possible today on the cultural front is the battle for the peaceful coexistence of the two cultures, that of the East and that of the West. I do not mean that they must embrace each other—I know that the confrontation of these two cultures must necessarily take the form of a conflict—but this confrontation must occur between men and between cultures, without the intervention of institutions.
I myself am deeply affected by the contradiction between the two cultures: I am made up of such contradictions. My sympathies undeniably go to socialism and to what is called the Eastern bloc, but I was born and brought up in a bourgeois family and a bourgeois culture. This permits me to collaborate with all those who seek to bring the two cultures closer together. I nonetheless hope, of course, that “the best man wins.” That is, socialism.
This is why I cannot accept an honor awarded by cultural authorities, those of the West any more than those of the East, even if I am sympathetic to their existence. Although all my sympathies are on the socialist side. I should thus be quite as unable to accept, for example, the Lenin Prize, if someone wanted to give it to me, which is not the case.
I know that the Nobel Prize in itself is not a literary prize of the Western bloc, but it is what is made of it, and events may occur which are outside the province of the members of the Swedish Academy. This is why, in the present situation, the Nobel Prize stands objectively as a distinction reserved for the writers of the West or the rebels of the East. It has not been awarded, for example, to Neruda, who is one of the greatest South American poets. There has never been serious question of giving it to Louis Aragon, though he certainly deserves it. It is regrettable that the prize was given to Pasternak and not to Sholokhov, and that the only Soviet work thus honored should be one published abroad and banned in its own country. A balance might have been established by a similar gesture in the other direction. During the war in Algeria, when we had signed the “declaration of the 121,” I should have gratefully accepted the prize, because it would have honored not only me, but also the freedom for which we were fighting. But matters did not turn out that way, and it is only after the battle is over that the prize has been awarded me.
In discussing the motives of the Swedish Academy, mention has been made of freedom, a word that suggests many interpretations. In the West, only a general freedom is meant: personally, I mean a more concrete freedom which consists of the right to have more than one pair of shoes and to eat one’s fill. It seems to me less dangerous to decline the prize than to accept it. If I accept it, I offer myself to what I shall call “an objective rehabilitation.” According to the Figaro littéraire article, “a controversial political past would not be held against me.” I know that this article does not express the opinion of the Academy, but it clearly shows how my acceptance would be interpreted by certain rightist circles. I consider this “controversial political past” as still valid, even if I am quite prepared to acknowledge to my comrades certain past errors.
I do not thereby mean that the Nobel Prize is a “bourgeois” prize, but such is the bourgeois interpretation which would inevitably be given by certain circles with which I am very familiar.
Lastly, I come to the question of the money: it is a very heavy burden that the Academy imposes upon the laureate by accompanying its homage with an enormous sum, and this problem has tortured me. Either one accepts the prize and with the prize money can support organizations or movements one considers important—my own thoughts went to the Apartheid committee in London. Or else one declines the prize on generous principles, and thereby deprives such a movement of badly needed support. But I believe this to be a false problem. I obviously renounce the 250,000 crowns because I do not wish to be institutionalized in either East or West. But one cannot be asked on the other hand to renounce, for 250,000 crowns, principles which are not only one’s own, but are shared by all one’s comrades.
That is what has made so painful for me both the awarding of the prize and the refusal of it I am obliged to make.
I wish to end this declaration with a message of fellow-feeling for the Swedish public.
No comments:
Post a Comment