But then there are dozens of impoverished and unjust places on earth.
I think the reality is that the five exclusively Norwegian politicians on the Peace prize committee are politicians. And they act accordingly. What if the committee would consist of Russian politicians exclusively, or Venezuelan ones?
> But then there are dozens of impoverished and unjust places on earth.
They only give out one prize, which means that no matter which they pick, there will be dozes of impoverished and unjust places that don't get recognized by it. That can't be used to reject a choice, since it's true no matter what choice they make.
> The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to United States president Barack Obama (b. 1961) for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples".
Doesn't mean that he's wrong, just that he knows it is an unpopular position. I can think of other positions that become fashionable or not with no relation to being correct or incorrect.
I personally don't know if he's right or wrong, I don't live in Europe, but the need to use a throwaway account is not evidence for being wrong.
The difference between whataboutism and discussion is that in discussion you propose an alternative. For example: how about that real estate developer who has fumbled multiple diplomatic initiatives?
