The Nobel Prize for Peace has been awarded jointly to the international panel on climate change and the former US vice-president Al Gore.
As usual, the Nobel Committee has sent a political message by turning out the environment protection as a core issue for war and peace. Struggle against climate change is not only a scientific problem, a technological or economical challenge. It is also a strategic issue. And a very important one. Yet last year, by awarding Mohammad Yunus, the father of micro-credit, the Nobel Committee stated that there is a link between economic development, access to resources for poor people and peace. It could be taken for granted that, regarding the accelerated pace of environmental degradation, the future of mankind should be more jeopardised by climate change than by terrorism or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Some strategic experts have already integrated environment matters into their preoccupations and thoughts. This link between protection of peace and protection of environment is right both on global and local terms.
In some African regions, droughts could be a starting or a conflict-enhancing factor by exacerbating the struggle for limited resources.
According to a recent United Nations report, the desertification process has been a key factor in the Darfur conflict, which brought slaughters, mass murders and massive displacement of populations. In case of water surge, people living along the Nile or near the Bangladesh Delta would not remain inactive. But where should they find a new shelter without worsening geopolitical sanctions that are already strong? What should be the consequences of melting Himalayan glaciers which are of the utmost importance to avoid catastrophic water shortages in India, Bangladesh and Pakistan? Obviously, there are manifold interactions between peace and environment.
Still, the international panel on climate change did not won the Nobel Prize alone. This should have been considered as neutral in political terms. Even if Al Gore has been jointly awarded, he is not only the producer of "A Inconvenient Truth", which succeeded a lot in mobilising the public opinion in favour of the struggle against climate change.
It is hard to forget that Al Gore is the defeated 2000 US presidential candidate against George W. Bush under very contested circumstances. One could only wonder what the global strategic situation should be now, had Gore won the election? For sure, better. He is one of the staunchest adversary of Bush. Contrary to many Democrat fellows, he has expressed his opposition to the Iraq war since the very beginning. He advocated in favour of American ratification of the Kyoto protocol, a step generally refused by the Bush Administration. On almost every subject, Gore is the "anti-Bush".
It is not the first time that the Nobel Prize is awarded to a man or an institution that is at odds with Bush. In 2002, Jimmy Carter, a former US president and a strong Bush opponent, received the prize. We must also keep in mind the prize jointly given to Kofi Annan and the United Nations (2001), and to Mohammad Al Baradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency (2005).
In the first case, multilateralism and worldwide organisation (not really a Bush priority) were rewarded. In the second case, it rewarded the ones who dismissed the accusations of possession by Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, the official trigger for the Iraq war.
Al Gore is 59 years old. Would he quietly remain the prophet of struggle against climate change or would he come back into the political arena? He should be interested in having his revenge and in settling a score. If revenge is a dish best served cold, he would have wait for eight years. How would he use the new influence and prestige of the Nobel Prize? He could already play a big role in the primary election, which will choose the Democrat candidate to run for president. He could have a nice and pleasant life, continuing to deliver speeches and appearing on popular TV shows. But he could also decide that he is too young to give up the opportunity to run again for president.
His task (a heavy one) would be to mend relations between the outside world and the US, which are badly damaged under the Bush presidency. He seems to be more able than Hillary Clinton to succeed in it. He seems to really have in mind the necessity of multilateralism to solve the huge challenges, climate change among others. He could really change the US policy, but will he take the risk of running again?
Dr Pascal Boniface is the founder and director of IRIS (Institut de Relations Internationales et Stratégiques). He has published or edited more than 40 books dealing with international relations, nuclear deterrence and disarmament, European security and French international policy.
