Funny you should mention this...a couple of weeks ago someone was talking on the radio about how the concept of the Nobel Peace Prize has evolved--at first it was given to people who helped those who suffered during conflicts, later to people who helped to prevent conflict; now, the woman on the radio said, the committee understand that 'trees=peace'--if you map out the areas of the world with the most conflict, you'll find that they match the areas with the most fragile environments. Wars now are ultimately wars for access to basic resources.
Someone wrote the following to the NYTimes this morning--it offers another answer your question.
'Those who claim, oddly, that the environment has nothing to do with “peace” should look at the award another way; Al Gore defeated George W. Bush in 2000, and he knew it (as did most of this Republic and most of the international community). Rather than allow the nation to be plunged into a growing constitutional crisis for which there seemed to be no imminent and peaceful resolution, Al Gore accepted the peculiar ruling of the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore and allowed the nation to begin to “heal” itself.
'Al Gore placed the safety and security of the nation above his own political ambition. That’s the second inconvenient truth that many of his critics hesitate to discuss.
That´s true and very well put, Flourish, but if that were the main reason then IMHO it would actually defeat the purpose and the logic and fairness of *universality* to award the ultimate acknowledgment for merits relating to "fostering peace for all Humanity" to a person in order to correct a wrong done at a *national* level to him, his political party and his voters: that kind of redress is the US´ High Court´s or US Ombudsman´s responsibility (or whichever institution is responsible at present for such issues), not the Nobel Academy´s. Again IMHO, this prize might be rather demeaned since Kissinger was awarded it, but for whatever moral value it still has, it should be about actual achievements for Humanity (like Mandela´s work of reconciliation, or Gorby´s perestroika) and not just personal vindication (I know the official Nobel argument was Gore´s environmental awareness campaign, but much as I admire a lot of what he´s done he really doesn´t even seem to live what he preaches within his own possibilities, while ironically, anti
( ... )
Bush could have a thousand "green" ranches (and I don't believe he has even one) and it still wouldn't make up for the damage he and his decisions have done to the environment on a national and international level
( ... )
Ah, okay, so the emphasis of Gore´s merit was on his acceptance of the ruling against him and his withdrawal rather than, or as much as, his campaign about climate change, as opposed to the UNPCC´s just-environmental work :) That does make the choice less surprising
( ... )
I think Greenpeace might still be too controversial for the prize, but I'm just speculating about that, and so was the writer of the letter I quoted, who simply sought to supply another *possible* reason to think in terms of "Gore = peace," not to state a definite answer to what Gore's merit was thought to be. The selections are often contoversial; this one will continue to be; and Neddy's comment above really says best what the committee seems to have been thinking this year
( ... )
Amen :D (As long as Greenpeace gets it one of these years too, hmph - or the alternative penchant to the Nobel *g* And Martti Ahtisaari, and Leonardo Boff, and Jean Ziegler, and Zubin Mehta.)
Matthai gave a conference in London a few years ago while we were there with Gran and on that occasion the focus was on female workers as THE key factor to her country´s development, and the ongoing fight for their basic human and labour rights and access to education, so I missed the environmental connection - all the better then!
(At the risk of sounding cruelly cynic, which isn´t at all the intention, several scientists here have remarked that global warming will harm most countries, among them nearly all of Europe, except for Austria and Switzerland, for whom its potential benefits far outweigh the disadvantages o.O)
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
'Those who claim, oddly, that the environment has nothing to do with “peace” should look at the award another way; Al Gore defeated George W. Bush in 2000, and he knew it (as did most of this Republic and most of the international community). Rather than allow the nation to be plunged into a growing constitutional crisis for which there seemed to be no imminent and peaceful resolution, Al Gore accepted the peculiar ruling of the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore and allowed the nation to begin to “heal” itself.
'Al Gore placed the safety and security of the nation above his own political ambition. That’s the second inconvenient truth that many of his critics hesitate to discuss.
'Carlton Long
'Quincy, Mass., Oct. 12, 2007'
Oh for what might have been,
--Flourish
Reply
Reply
Reply
--Flourish :)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Matthai gave a conference in London a few years ago while we were there with Gran and on that occasion the focus was on female workers as THE key factor to her country´s development, and the ongoing fight for their basic human and labour rights and access to education, so I missed the environmental connection - all the better then!
(At the risk of sounding cruelly cynic, which isn´t at all the intention, several scientists here have remarked that global warming will harm most countries, among them nearly all of Europe, except for Austria and Switzerland, for whom its potential benefits far outweigh the disadvantages o.O)
Reply
Leave a comment