Alone in the field

When former US President Jimmy Carter arrived in Stockholm in the early 1980s, he resentfully told Nobel Foundation executive director Stig Ramel: “If you had given me the Peace Prize in 1978, I would still be in the White House.” Ramel spread his hands: "By the time the Camp David Accords were signed between Israel and Egypt, the list of nominees was closed, we could not violate the procedure." But if Carter, not Reagan, won the election in 1980, world history could have gone differently ...

This year, the Norwegian Nobel Committee was not afraid to "intervene" in the US election campaign. The awarding of Al Gore gave rise to another wave of rumors about his return to politics.

The Nobel Peace Prize has been criticized for bias and politicking. But it is a fairly accurate indicator of the state of affairs in international relations. Voters seek to stimulate processes they consider important. A review of the laureates of "our era" - the period after the Cold War - allows you to make a portrait of the era.

1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 - Dalai Lama, Mikhail Gorbachev, leader of the Burmese opposition Aung San Suu Kyi and human rights activist from Guatemala Rigoberta Menchu. The time of the "end of history" - great hopes that totalitarian and dictatorial regimes from Asia to Latin America are sent to the dustbin of history.

The result for today: no changes in Tibet and Burma. The USSR collapsed, giving rise to a number of regimes of varying degrees of authoritarianism. Latin America shied away from military juntas to socialist demagogy.

From 1993 to 2002: an attempt at global transformation. Six awards - for the resolution of chronic conflicts. The abolition of apartheid in South Africa, the Israel-Palestine peace process, the bloodless secession of East Timor from Indonesia, the settlement in Ulster, the beginning of reconciliation on the Korean Peninsula, mediation efforts in different regions (finally Carter).

Four more awards of that time went to transnational structures symbolizing the ideological and humanitarian contours of the new world: the anti-nuclear Pugwash Conference, the movement to ban anti-personnel mines, Doctors Without Borders, and finally, the UN.

What's in the dry matter? Two successes (South Africa and Ulster). One crackling failure (Palestine). One failure (an impoverished East Timor living off donors). One remaining chance (Korea). The planet did not become nuclear-free, humane, or orderly, rather the opposite.

Finally, the period after 2003. The war in Iraq went from a triumph of "American peace" to the decline of a "new world order" that never came. The only organization awarded the prize is the IAEA, an attempt to support a sprawling nonproliferation regime. The rest of the laureates are private individuals striving alone to do what degrading institutions cannot cope with.

Shirin Ebadi is a women's and children's rights activist in Iran. Wangari Maathai - Kenyan "green". Bangladeshi banker Mohammad Yunus, inventor of microcredit for the poorest, for "efforts to create economic and social development from below." Since it is not possible to create peace and prosperity from above, it is worth at least supporting those who are trying to do it from below.

Al Gore, the man behind the fight against climate change, confirms this trend. Perhaps the decision of the Norwegian Nobel Committee will breathe new life not only into the environmental movement, but also into American politics. And this means - and in the world