Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jimmy's Peace Prize isn't worth peanuts
The Toronto Sun ^ | October 20, 2002 | Peter Worthington

Posted on 10/20/2002, 3:58:23 PM by Undertow

October 20, 2002 Jimmy's Peace Prize isn't worth peanuts By PETER WORTHINGTON -- Toronto Sun If what we're told about President George Bush's character is true, the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to ex-president Jimmy Carter is more likely to ensure rather than discourage an attack on Saddam Hussein.

The statement by Nobel comittee chairman Gunnar Berge, that it was awarded to Carter partly as a criticism of the Bush administration, is not only appalling, but unforgivable.

It further damages the reputation of the Nobel Peace Prize which, over the years, has become as much a political gesture as a humanitarian award.

But rarely has a member of the selection committee, much less its chairman, declared the prize "must also be seen as criticism of the line the U.S. administration has taken on Iraq ... a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States."

"Kick in the leg" is the Norwegian's polite way of saying "kick in the ass" of George W. Bush. Some think Carter should have refused the prize on the basis it's being used to attack his president, his country. But opposing America has never deterred Carter since leaving office.

North Vietnam's Le Duc Tho is the only co-recipient (with Henry Kissinger in 1973) I can recall who refused the award because it wasn't "peace" Hanoi sought in Vietnam, but victory.

The politics of the Nobel Peace Prize cut both ways. The award in 1975 to the great human rights advocate in the Soviet Union, Andrei Sakharov, was political and angered the Kremlin, but pleased people like me who saw Soviet communism as the imperialistic menace it was.

Giving the Peace Prize in 1978 to Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin was also "political," but popular in mending relations between Israel and Egypt. The award in 1994 to Yasser Arafat, in any capacity, even combined with Shimon Perez and Yitzhak Rabin, was a travesty and denigration of everything the award should stand for. It failed wretchedly to encourage peace between Palestine and Israel.

The 1991 Peace Prize to Aung San Suu Kyi, while political, may actually have saved her from reprisals by Burma's dictators.

George Bush, from all accounts, is a president like the world has never before experienced. Well, maybe Teddy Roosevelt, who understood the "speak softly but carry a big stick" mentality. Teddy's willingness to use military force resulted in few countries anxious to risk tangling with his administration.

It's worth recalling that when American businessman Ion Perdicaris and his stepson were kidnapped by a charismatic Berber sheikh, Ahmed Raisuli, Roosevelt sent seven warships to Morocco and at the Republican National Convention declared: "Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead." Morocco's sultan quickly paid the $70,000 ransom to free Perdicaris - who was fat, bearded and middle-aged and bore no resemblance to Candice Bergen in the movie The Wind and the Lion, based on the event.

League of Nations

Teddy Roosevelt, it should be remembered, was the first American president to win a Nobel Peace Prize in 1906 for negotiating peace between Russia and Japan. President Woodrow Wilson also won the award in 1919 as the founder of the ill-fated League of Nations, which was too inept to deter the rise of Hitler and Mussolini, and led to World War II.

Today, the UN is perilously close to emulating the League of Nations - especially if it ignores the malignancy of rogue regimes like Iraq that encourage terrorism, which Bush apparently sees as his duty to curb or eliminate - a noble goal, if you think about it, and long overdue. If Bush fails in his mission, his reputation will suffer and the world will be doomed to increased state terrorism.

Those who oppose war should realize Saddam Hussein is not Iraq. Eliminate him, and the dynamics of terror change. Jeremiahs who fret that killing Saddam would risk more war and instability in the region are simply wrong. If he can be eliminated quickly and efficiently (a tall order), the Arab "street" will not be the problem many fear.

Most Muslim countries are ruled by those who at one time or another seized power via coup or assassination. The "street" resonates to whoever is in power - especially Iraq, where any successor to Saddam is an improvement. If Iraq becomes an orderly state again, unthreatening to neighbours, its own population and the world because of U.S. intervention - with or without UN approval - Muslim states will quickly rethink their relationship with terrorists who get both sanctuary and financing.

Saudi Arabia especially will shudder. About time. The Saudi royal family - scoundrels and tyrants with double standards and two faces - will become more reasonable. They may even be persuaded to curtail funds for terrorism, before they're ousted by enemies from within. The Wahhabi sect of Islam is the main problem - for Muslims as well as us infidels - and their base is Saudi Arabia. With no financing, the Wahhabi become an irritation, not a threat.

No matter what Bush does, no matter how successful his"wars" may be, it won't curb individual terrorism, just state-sponsored terrorists. Bush, of course, must cope with the Clinton administration's refusal to see state terrorism (Iraq, again) involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In those days, the CIA and FBI didn't co-operate. Officially, terrorism was viewed as a crime by individuals, not by states. The 1993 bombing was a preamble to 9/11.

World's politician

Now that restraining influences by the USSR and America on various rogue regimes are no more, America has little choice but to be the world's policeman with or without UN approval.

Canada, as represented by Foreign Minister Bill Graham, disagrees and can't foresee any justification for unilateral U.S. action against Saddam. Graham is totally a UN man, as he would have been a League of Nations man in the 1930s.

The UN is hopeless on its own. By acknowledging that America has a duty to enforce stability and restraint on dangerous, erratic countries that produce weapons of destabilization, George Bush may be the true man of peace - something that eludes the likes of Jimmy Carter, whose transitory glory may yet be seen as America's despair.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Another gem from Worthington.

I especially liked his reference to TR. Any Freeper who has not yet read "Theodore Rex" by Edmund Morris should ASAP.

1 posted on 10/20/2002, 3:58:23 PM by Undertow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Undertow
The title should read "Jimmy isn't worth peanuts."
2 posted on 10/20/2002, 4:06:32 PM by Paul Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Undertow
Good article here!
3 posted on 10/20/2002, 4:20:23 PM by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
Jimmuh in't wuth peanuts.
4 posted on 10/20/2002, 4:54:01 PM by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Undertow
The original Nobel committee had a great difference between their politics and their standards....compared to todays Nobel committee. Teddy would never have been allowed a Nobel Peace prize under todays regime. His use of force....when necessary surprised an awful lot of folks. When one looks for the great attributes of a Republican president....they need only look at Teddy. He believed in diplomacy up to a point...then force was the next step...period. He believed in a environmental policy and taking care of national parks....although he had no problem with timber companies managing their own forrests. He was obviously ahead of his time...and probably would never had been elected...had he not been propelled into the White House by the assination of the president.
5 posted on 10/20/2002, 5:10:13 PM by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice
You make a lot of good points. But he did win an election in his own right. As did another great man, Calvin Coolidge.
6 posted on 10/20/2002, 5:34:52 PM by Undertow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Undertow
<< But opposing America has never deterred Carter since leaving office. sic >>

Never deterred the treasonous dawk while he occupied the office, either!
7 posted on 10/20/2002, 5:46:43 PM by Brian Allen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Undertow
"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat..."

(THEODORE ROOSEVELT -- Paris Sorbonne, 1910)

8 posted on 10/20/2002, 6:17:22 PM by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Undertow
Surprised nobody mentioned this here.

FR thread: Carter, Democrats Asked Soviets to Stop Reagan, Sway U.S. Elections

9 posted on 10/20/2002, 8:17:39 PM by my_pointy_head_is_sharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Undertow
Already posted here.
10 posted on 10/20/2002, 8:26:33 PM by TomServo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomServo
Well it's been posted again.
11 posted on 10/20/2002, 8:29:11 PM by Undertow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Undertow
Gee, thanks for helping out the cause.
12 posted on 10/20/2002, 8:47:59 PM by TomServo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TomServo
you're welcome
13 posted on 10/20/2002, 8:54:25 PM by Undertow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Undertow
Worthington speaks the truth.
14 posted on 10/20/2002, 9:34:30 PM by desertcry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
The peanut farmer thinks that his nobel peace prize finally elevated his legacy. Well jimmy boy, I have news for you: Your worthless legacy has just fallen several rung lower, it has become traitorous.
15 posted on 10/20/2002, 9:42:02 PM by desertcry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: desertcry
And, here we thought our opinions of him couldn't get any lower!
16 posted on 10/20/2002, 9:44:34 PM by Paul Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Undertow

17 posted on 10/20/2002, 9:48:19 PM by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jimer
Oh man, that's hilarious!
18 posted on 10/20/2002, 11:37:12 PM by Undertow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Undertow
How can anyone who attacked a rabbit with a paddle when it was struggling to swim up to the boat he was in, ever win a Nobel Peace Prize?
Did PETA protest?
19 posted on 10/21/2002, 1:03:44 AM by kcar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kcar
I've always theorized that he mistook the rabbit for Billy.
20 posted on 10/21/2002, 1:07:29 AM by Undertow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson