Reflections on the Nobel Peace prize

In two of the last five years’ Nobel Peace prize ceremonies there has been a certain symbolic silence, or a silence of symbolism.

The first of the two I am talking about is the 2002 prize handed to Jimmy Carter “For his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts.” What isn’t said in this is the following: “Dear Mr. Bush. Please remember the good old days of American Foreign Policy when human rights really was an issue. Remember when the US-government really tried to achieve peace in the Middle East. Please Mr. President, it’s not too late to repent! You can still change your ways.”

The second such prize of symbolic silence is the 2007 prize, half of it handed to Al Gore. What was said was “For their [Al Gore and the UN Climate Panel] efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.” What wasn’t said, in the tradition of silence, was: “Dr. Mr. Bush, the man who you defeated in elections (not completely democratically) has in his job as not-president, done a more important job for making the world a better place than you. A fact that is quite impressive considering the fact that you’ve ruled the greatest nation on earth, while he has been a mere traveling preacher-man.” Also, what isn’t said, is: “Dear American people. We recognize the fact that if you had a full-fledged, well-functioning democracy, the man whom we honour today would have been your president.” And by the same token: “Dear Mr. Gore. Thank you not only for your work on making climate change an issue, but also for your insistent work on pointing out the malfunctions of American democracy.” Taking the silence into consideration, perhaps the choice wasn’t so bad after all. Still, I can’t help wonder … why doesn’t Al Gore ever use public transport in his film?