Back or forth?

During years, since I started to get interested in the Nobel Prizes, there has been a very interesting fluctuation between politics and non-politics.

Well, to be sincere, most of the assigned prizes have been quite political. Perhaps the only exception I can really think of is Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

This year, 3 women have been chosen, which is by itself quite intriguing. Although all of the 3 have their actions embedded in politics, their choice goes beyond that. As it says in the statement, they have been chosen "for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women and for women’s rights to full participation in peace-building work".

First of all, STANDING OVATION to you three. I don't think there will any doubt or polemic as the former years. But it is the non-violent piece appeals to me. As I have said many times before, I really don't believe in peace as a result of the lack of violence or war. I live in Colombia, and I can see that even the war being eradicated, there is still so much violence. I have seen in countries where the biggest violence is a run-over, and still I see so much anger inside.

But I understand it is a process, perhaps longer than we would appreciate, to stop associating peace with war.

Is it possible? I think it is, and it will be real revolution, much more powerful than any other. When people - at least a critical mass of people - realise within that peace starts from the self, then the world will change dramatically.

Think what will happen with the economy when people are really satisfied, when marketing cannot attract others, but just inform. What will happen when people are not looking for show, but for being peaceful?

Probably, you would think it will be quite boring. I used to think like that. And, yes, in the present context it will be boring. But, contexts change. And really hope this way back to non-violence by the Nobel-prize granters can make people more aware of its importance.