Al Gore seems to be the latest expression of our friends’ desire to join our anger at the antics of America’s leaders. Like us, they want our leadership to stop behaving like addled brats in a nursery. And with the prizes in 2002 (Jimmy Carter) and 2005 (El Baradei/IAEA), we got the message. But this is turning into the Nobel “guy who’s showing the American government what they’re doing wrong” award, and I’m not sure that’s the intention.
I like Al Gore. Voted for him in 2000, after the media robbed him of a fair campaign, and the thugs in robes robbed him of the presidency (though he and Lieberman could be charged as accessories in many ways). If he jumped in the race, he’d be in my top 3, maybe my top choice, depending on his full platform.
And he’s done good work on the environment. Gore deserves recognition for furthering environmentalism and boosting its profile still more. With his movie, and his books and his concerts.
Meanwhile, Morgan Tsvangirai has been subject to beatings, arrests, and bogus charges for standing up to a leader who wants to raze his country and feed his people on hatred.
Meanwhile, Saad Hariri is trying to keep Lebanon in one piece despite a Syrian goon squad that took out his father. The country totters on the edge of civil war, with three other nations doing dirty work within its borders, and the best hope remains with a 37-year old business major.
The Nobel Peace Prize should highlight bravery and courage for peace. I’d wish that it would bring resources and attention on people who’ve sacrificed their well-being in its name. The Vice President is doing a wonderful, high-profile service, but is this really courage and bravery for peace?
Meanwhile, the Red Cross tries to bring humanity to wars across the globe (and I don’t care that they got the award in 1963).
Meanwhile, Reporters Without Borders speaks out against the rising tide of murder and imprisonment that greets people who seek to learn and tell the truth.
This award could influence politics in this country, maybe even this world. I guess. Perhaps some Americans will respect Gore more than they did, and respect his blessing more than they would have (or did in 2004 *cough*). Maybe he’ll have a smidge more influence here.
Meanwhile, Grigory Yavlisnky leads the lonely fight against Putin’s Stalinization of Russia.
Meanwhile, the Chinese Democracy Party staggers, decapacitated as its members are funneled into labor camps or forced out of the country.
I’m sure the former vice president will act with grace, and use this award to further a great cause that is already well along.
Meanwhile, Sharif Hassan Sheikh Adan is punished and hated by all sides in the morass that is Somalia for trying to find ground for peace and reconciliation.
Meanwhile, another thug in a uniform, another goon in a suit continues to live out lust for money and power . A man who was bathed in the spotlight of a global concert this summer is once again front and center. And thousands of warriors for peace remain in the shadows, under fire.
Al Gore? He should be president. He shouldn’t be a Nobel Laureate.
Meanwhile, the Red Cross tries to bring humanity to wars across the globe (and I don’t care that they got the award in 1963)
<
p>
…came from, but the man who founded the Red Cross, Henry Dunant, earned the very first Nobel Peace Prize in 1901.
<
p>
http://nobelprize.or…
<
p>
The International Committee of the Red Cross also earned the award in 1917 and 1944, in addition to 1963. http://nobelprize.or… How much more would the Norwegian Nobel Committee need to do to honor the contributions of the Red Cross?
The ICRC is one of a long list of organizations who fulfill the requirements for the Nobel Peace Prize better than Gore’s global warming campaign. If you think they don’t deserve more recognition, as I’ve noted there are many others to choose from.
Have they stopped doing their work?
<
p>
Perhaps the Norwegian Nobel Committee has, since 1963, determined to expand its sights to other operations that affect global peace. Environmental degradation certainly qualifies, as does nuclear proliferation, reduction of wars, etc., etc., etc. If I were them, I would have had awards for the World Health Organization, and organ of the UN (there has been none) and Médecins Sans Frontières (there was one, but in 1999).
<
p>
The ICRC isn’t the only body that is involved in international peace.
Raj, I put out a partial list. If you want to add to that list, go ahead. I think WHO should receive more recognition, yes. I wasn’t playing Nobel Committee…I was pointing out how their politics are devaluing the award, and missing a real opportunity to expand the playing field for democracy.
<
p>
And perhaps the Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to change the game, and violate the terms of Mister Nobel’s will. Doesn’t mean that I’m gonna like it and clap and nod my head because I like one of the beneficiaries.
I think the Nobel Peace Prize would be stale if all they did was give out the same kind of awards. But, if you don’t think the global climate crisis fits the original bill, I think you should reconsider. The award statement made it pretty clear that they viewed global warming as serious peace stuff, especially when they were talking about the wars that are likely as the climate worsens and as people jump to get the last few gallons of oil left. Isn’t doing work to prevent wars even better than yelling loudly and staging sitdowns when war is among us?
<
p>
I think so.
First off, I know you’re not saying that Tsvangirai, Yavlisnky, and Hariri are “yelling loudly and staging sitdowns”. We both know that it’s a heck of a lot more than that.
<
p>
If we’re going to use the NPP to recognize those working on chains of causality to war fine. Global warming may be setting the stage for war in the future just as water shortage is. Should Bob Simon have received the Nobel Prize for his work in that field?
<
p>
I’m just saying that if you take out the politics, and look at who’s promoting peace right now, not avoiding war far in the future, Gore doesn’t fit the bill. And if the Nobel Committee has decided to shift the meaning of the prize, it would be decent of them to be open about that decision (and if I were an heir to Nobel, I’d consider a suit to regain my inheritance, as the committee is clearly violating the terms of the will).
Not just work to reduce war or mitigate the effects of war, but also to reduce the likelihood of “clashes of civilization” which might be caused by forced migration, whatever the reasons for the forcing. It should be relatively obvious that climate change has and will continue to cause changes in rainfall patterns, resulting in desertification. It’s been reported that much of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the Sudan/Darfur issue is a result of conflict over water rights. The fires last summer in Greece, Italy and Spain were exacerbated by lack of rainfall.
<
p>
On the other hand, Chinese decimation of watershed has been causing flooding in Bangladesh, which itself causes migration. Another example in which climate change can result in “clashes of civilization.”
<
p>
Peace does not just mean the absence of war between or among countries.
and I’ll say it as many times as I have to. My “narrow” view is the view traditionally espoused and supported by the men and women who award the Nobel Prize. Sorry if anyone’s offended when I point out that they’re changing the rules and delving deep into politics lately.