What's new

India snubs China, to attend Nobel ceremony

China and 18 other countries have declined invitations to Friday's Nobel peace prize ceremony, organisers said today, as Beijing launched a fresh attack on the decision to honour the jailed dissident Liu Xiaobo.

Norway's Nobel committee dismissed the Chinese foreign ministry's claim that the international community did not support the award.

Beijing has urged diplomats in Oslo to stay away from the event, warning of "consequences" if they do not do so.

Several of those who have turned down invitations are long-term allies or trade partners. The full list comprises Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, Russia, Kazakhstan, Colombia, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Venezuela, the Philippines, Egypt, Ukraine, Cuba and Morocco.

Another 44 are attending, while Algeria and Sri Lanka have not replied to their invitations.

The Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said: "As far as I know, at present, more than 100 countries and organisations have expressed explicit support for China opposing the Nobel peace prize, which fully shows that the international community does not accept the decision of the Nobel committee."

She declined to list those who would not attend, but added: "After the ceremony, you can see that the vast majority of the international community will not attend."

Geir Lundestad, the committee's executive secretary, said that was "a very curious way of stating things", because only the 65 countries with embassies in Norway were invited.

But he acknowledged: "One of the reasons [for states not attending] is undoubtedly China."

A spokesman for the US state department said: "Our ambassador will be there. Our actions speak for themselves."

Li Datong, a Beijing-based writer who recently signed a petition calling for Liu's release, said it was "absolute rubbish" to say the international community opposed the award.

He added: "The foreign ministry has no shame. It's a lie, pure and simple, told without the slightest hint of embarrassment."

Sam Zarifi, Amnesty International's director for the Asia-Pacific region, said: "There are a couple of disappointments, but it's effectively a club of countries with relatively bad human rights records."

He said China had persuaded only a small minority to snub the event despite "arm-twisting ... using a combination of political pressure and economic blackmail".

In one case, it is believed that an ambassador decided to attend in person – instead of sending another diplomat as he had planned – after receiving China's warning.

According to the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten, all invited countries sent representatives last year, when Barack Obama won. The previous year, about 10 countries did not attend the ceremony for Martti Ahtisaari, the former Finnish prime minister.

The Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman described supporters of the award as clowns orchestrating a farce. Jiang said they were fundamentally opposed to China's development and wanted to interfere in the country's politics and legal system.

She added: "All policies in China are for the interests of the majority of the Chinese people. We will not change ... because of the interference of some clowns who are anti-China."

Beijing was furious at the decision to recognise Liu, who is serving an 11-year sentence for incitement to subvert state power after co-authoring Charter 08, a call for democratic reforms.

The authorities have placed his wife, Liu Xia, and other supporters under house arrest and have barred other activists and dissidents from leaving the country, apparently for fear they will attend the event.

"It is normal that some countries and organisations will not approve of and not attend the Nobel ceremony," said Pu Zhiqiang, a Beijing-based human rights lawyer. "But this has no logical relationship to the real issue, which is whether or not those who want to attend are permitted to attend."

The event would normally be marked by the handover of the Nobel gold medal, a diploma and prize money worth 10m kronor (£1m), but organisers say that will not happen this year because only close family can collect on a winner's behalf. China is unlikely to let Liu's relatives attend.

It will be the first time the prize has not been handed over since Nazi Germany barred the pacifist Carl von Ossietzky from attending in 1936.


Eighteen more countries refuse to attend Nobel peace prize ceremony | World news | The Guardian
 
Just my humble opinion: GoC screwed themselves here by making this incident more publicized.

EDIT: Also what was the intent of demanding countries not to attend? To me it comes off as "Do what I ask you to or else... etc". Quite childish really. I expected GoC to be smarter.
 
Last edited:
Well, I second your view here. India should take a stand here and clamp down on tibetian political activity! .. Would do us more good. Let support be on Humanitarian grounds alone.

I was surprised seeing Chinese raise the ante by the stapled visa affair though ... thought it was immature. I'm hoping Jiabao and Singh surprises us Indians.

Here's my take on the infamous staples

1) Kashmir as far as I know is still on the list of UN recognized disputed regions
2) China issues a visa would be a de facto recognition of Indian sovereignty in Kashmir (contrary to point 1)
3) China has no incentive to recognize India's claims because regardless of the level of political activity of the Tibetan government in exile is still a rival government that claims as its jurisdiction a sovereign and internationally unchallenged part of China.


As for the visit coming up. China has alway made the habit of offering a gesture of good will before major meetings (slight currency re-evaluation before G20 for example) and this is no different. China I believe has been issuing stamped visas to people from Kashmir during the run up to the Asian games and now the summit. How this is going to affect the continuation of this policy will remain to be seen.
 
Here's my take on the infamous staples

1) Kashmir as far as I know is still on the list of UN recognized disputed regions
2) China issues a visa would be a de facto recognition of Indian sovereignty in Kashmir (contrary to point 1)
3) China has no incentive to recognize India's claims because regardless of the level of political activity of the Tibetan government in exile is still a rival government that claims as its jurisdiction a sovereign and internationally unchallenged part of China.

Only a few questions:

1. Kashmir is a disputed territory since 1947, then why did China wake up suddenly one fine day to realise this and started issuing stapled visas?

Why were you not practicing this policy since 1947?

2. Why deny the visa to the Indian general when in the recent past, other military personnel of similar rank and belonging to the same so-called 'disputed' territory have been given visas?

3. Why refer to Indian Kashmir as 'disputed' and Pakistani Kashmir as 'Part of Pakistan'?
 
In this case you may call it a snub...India is facing this snub from deades.

If case you didn't realize it, I copy and pasted the title of the thread. A thread started by an Indian with an Indian newspaper article.

I swear if I put a rock in front of you people, you'd still go nuts arguing with it.
 
@cardsharp

lol,u say kashmir is in disputed list,and u recognize pakistani kashmir as a part of pakistan.y objection on indian one only.??
wat abt the kashmir held by china??

firstly china correct ur self and the shud request india for some thing..
 
If case you didn't realize it, I copy and pasted the title of the thread. A thread started by an Indian with an Indian newspaper article.

I swear if I put a rock in front of you people, you'd still go nuts arguing with it.

No need to get emotional/belligerent sir. The user probably did not investigate the source.
 
Only a few questions:

1. Kashmir is a disputed territory since 1947, then why did China wake up suddenly one fine day to realise this and started issuing stapled visas?

Why were you not practicing this policy since 1947?

2. Why deny the visa to the Indian general when in the recent past, other military personnel of similar rank and belonging to the same so-called 'disputed' territory have been given visas?

3. Why refer to Indian Kashmir as 'disputed' and Pakistani Kashmir as 'Part of Pakistan'?

@cardsharp

lol,u say kashmir is in disputed list,and u recognize pakistani kashmir as a part of pakistan.y objection on indian one only.??
wat abt the kashmir held by china??

firstly china correct ur self and the shud request india for some thing..

In this case you may call it a snub...India is facing this snub from deades.

Only a few questions:

1. Kashmir is a disputed territory since 1947, then why did China wake up suddenly one fine day to realise this and started issuing stapled visas?

Why were you not practicing this policy since 1947?

2. Why deny the visa to the Indian general when in the recent past, other military personnel of similar rank and belonging to the same so-called 'disputed' territory have been given visas?

3. Why refer to Indian Kashmir as 'disputed' and Pakistani Kashmir as 'Part of Pakistan'?


I find it curious how belligerent and emotional you people get even when the other side is trying to put their views across in a mannered fashion.

Curious but not surprise.

*giving up and waiting for spazz outs below*
 
I find it curious how belligerent and emotional you people get even when the other side is trying to put their views across in a mannered fashion.

Curious but not surprise.

*giving up and waiting for spazz outs below*

Clever way of avioding answering my questions. :cool:
 
I find it curious how belligerent and emotional you people get even when the other side is trying to put their views across in a mannered fashion.

Curious but not surprise.

*giving up and waiting for spazz outs below*

I see no belligerence in the above posts. (not just saying that because I'm Indian)

In fact quite a valid question by CaptianJackSparrow:

You said:1) Kashmir as far as I know is still on the list of UN recognized disputed regions

He asked: 3. Why refer to Indian Kashmir as 'disputed' and Pakistani Kashmir as 'Part of Pakistan'?

PS: We are going slightly off-topic here.
 
Of course you wouldn't, but I do hope you can at least see the irony here.


I fail to see any belligerence on my part in quoted section. Maybe I am blind...
:cheers:


EDIT: What I see is an edited quote!

My original quote: " GoC screwed themselves..."
Your edit: "GoC can go screw themselves..."


Being a senior member, I would have expected more from you.
 
I am terrified of your butter knife sharp wit and analysis. :cheers:

OuchCharlie.png
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom