The 2008 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to former Finnish President Martii Ahtisaari by the Norwegian Nobel Committee for his “important efforts” in resolving global conflicts. Ahtisaari is rumoured to have been a candidate for the past few years, and has finally received his deserved recognition as a peacemaker.
According to sources at SikuNews, Ahtisaari was chosen this year for his long-term involvement in global peacekeeping efforts. He was very active in the peace process for Indonesia’s Aceh Province as well as being a United Nations special envoy to Kosovo. Ahtisaari truly embodies the original hopes of Alfred Nobel to award the peace prize to a person who, “Contributed to a more peaceful world,” and the “fraternity between nations.”
The Nobel Committee has come under fire in recent years for awarding the peace prize to human rights activists or environmentalists. But all will agree that Ahtisaari is a true peacemaker. He won from a field of 200 nominations that consisted of 160 individuals and some 30 organisations.
Nominations come from an elite group of people from around the globe, including members of governments, university professors, former Nobel winners and past members of the Nobel Committee. Ahtisaari will receive his prize of a medal, a diploma, and SEK10 million in cash on 10 December in Oslo.
Martti Ahtisaari truly deserves this prize. Maybe this wasn’t the best year to give it to him but if anyone deserves it it’s Ahtisaari. Kosovo wasn’t the main if any reason at all this prize was awarded to Ahtisaari or “the penguin” as many of us in Finland call him. His greatest achievement was the independence of Namibia among many others. Michalis I recommend you start utilizing your local Greek wikipedia or google with the keyword Ahtisaari and maybe come back and comment with some new information / attitude.
There can be no doubt that the kosovo charter was “washingtons will” on paper. Without American and EU support this paper would never have been written.
The question is who’s concerns was represnting in this negotiation. That’s why I referred to decisions in which he had no direct involvent. One can be nominally independent and neutral, but not so in fact.
“was it the right solution to bomb the population of Serbia?”
He didn’t have much to do with the bombings of Serbia. I think Clinton was the one authorizing the go ahead for that operation.
“he was in fact an envoyee of NATO countries. ”
Finland is not a member of NATO, if NATO wanted to send an envoy they would have send Solana
“is this real independence he provided?”
He didn’t provide anything, he only drew the road map. How it is implemented is nothing he has anything to do with.
“all will agree that Ahtisaari is a true peacemaker”
I am not so sure about this. I do not know much about Aceh, but in the case of Kosovo he was in fact an envoyee of NATO countries. Though there was repression and attempts of ethnic cleansing from the Serbian goverment against the Kosovo Albanian, was it the right solution to bomb the population of Serbia? Not to mention that using a human rights discourse it doesn’t mean you are really fighting for human rights. And, to come to his plan for the independence of Kosovo, is this real independence he provided? It seems more a EU protectorate than a really sovereign country.