Jimmy Carter, Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Xugumad]

Searching for peace...

<IMG SRC="http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,215708,00.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,215710,00.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,215712,00.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,215714,00.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,215716,00.jpg">

<IMG SRC="http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,215718,00.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,215723,00.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,215725,00.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,215720,00.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,215727,00.jpg">

Partly a reward for his tireless efforts to make world peace reality, partly a late recognition for his role in 1978 Camp David accords between Israel's Menachem Begin and Egypt's Anwar El Sadat, which averted serious conflict in the Middle East for two decades.

The Nobel Committee chairman also indicated that this is a signal of discontent regarding GW's current Iraq sabre-rattling, although fellow committee members consider this to be more of a personal opinion than an official statement.

X.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Xugumad

The Nobel Committee chairman also indicated that this is a signal of discontent regarding GW's current Iraq sabre-rattling, although fellow committee members consider this to be more of a personal opinion than an official statement..

Well, they would know, wouldn't they? If only the chairman endorses that view, that would make it a personal one.

[tw]

Carter has been up for the Peace Prize many times. Comments from the chairmen were representative of the committee. Carter won this time, in part, because of the George Jr militancy and the resulting instabilities George Jr has created throughout the world. George Jr has perverted the American position within the world that severely.

That was the overall opinion of the prize committe and not just one man. However, even worse, the committee's general opinion is correct - disturbingly correct. After all, many in the George Jr administration even advocated use of force over a silly spy plane incident with China. It has personally seen to the destruction of the Oslo Accords - which the Norwegian foreign minister was warning of (in terse words) even before Sharon attacked the occupied territories. We return to deficiet spending mostly because America needs more military - even though our military is larger than something like the next five countries combined.

Undertoad hyperlinked a Radio Free Europe thesis that basically notes same problem. We have too much military and now a President and advisors that feels compelled to 'use it or loose it'. It could be said that George Jr got the Nobel Prize for Carter. Carter should now be greatful to George Jr. Will not happen.

[Undertoad]

IOW, basically the committee was making a political statement and the value of the prize is diminished.

I would give it back.

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
IOW, basically the committee was making a political statement and the value of the prize is diminished.

Where is the peace prize not about political actions and results? How can we have peace without politics? Why does the Nobel committe demean itself when it only comments on the obvious and points out the antithesis?

[Nic Name]

UT says,

I would give it back.

the million dollars?

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by tw
Comments from the chairmen were representative of the committee.

At least one comittee member disagrees, and the chairman was either speaking for himself, or violating Comittee rules by taking part in public debates after the award is announced. .
<blockquote>
In remarks to reporters after the announcement, Mr. Berge said that Mr. Carter had been nominated for the peace prize "many, many times" but that a major reason that he was finally selected was that he represented a counterpoint to the militancy of President Bush....

Another member of the prize committee, Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, challenged Mr. Berge's observations. "The way I see it, that was not the intention of the committee," she said in an interview with NRK radio...

Indeed, according to a statement on the Nobel Committee's Web site: "There must be no mention in the minutes of any Nobel Committee meetings of the contents of discussions relating to choices of candidates for the various awards, nor must any differences of opinion in committees be divulged in other ways. For that reason, committee members take no part in the public debates which follow the announcement of decisions."
</blockquote>

[Xugumad]

Undertoad
IOW, basically the committee was making a political statement and the value of the prize is diminished.

The Nobel Peace Prize is always about political statements. Peace results from politics, with International Relations as a catalyst.

Was the prize for the ICBL and Jody Williams in 1997 not a political statement? What about the 1995 prize to the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, when US-Soviet relations were at a decisive point? The 1983 prize to Lech Walesa, when Solidarnosc were being suppressed in Poland? The 1975 prize to Sakharov, taking a stance against human rights abuses in the USSR? The 1964 prize to Martin Luther King Jr., support against US segregation and civil rights abuses? The 1935 prize to Carl von Ossietzky, as a signal to the German government that it was acting tyrannically and inhumanely?

That's what it's all about. That is the value of the prize, aside from the current EU1.1mil.

It's standing up for what they believe to be right, which in hindsight has been correct for the vast majority of the time since 1901. That you disagree with their opinion doesn't devalue anything. That is its purpose.

I would give it back.

That's nice, make an off-hand dismissive comment about the prize that is given to the people who have in large parts done more for the good of mankind than any of us probably ever will. Even Arafat, who jointly received it with Peres and Rabin in 1994, has done more to reduce Palestinian militancy than anyone could have ever believed ten or twenty years ago when there was absolutely no way that Israel-Palestinian co-operation could exist as it does now.

Exceptions, such as Kissinger in 1973, do exist (although Kissinger under Nixon is credited to some extent with the US withdrawing from Vietnam), but it's worrying to see uninformed derogatory comments attempting to devalue what the Nobel Peace Prize stands for. Read more about the laureates and the prize <a href="http://www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/">here</a>.

X.

[tw]

Originally posted by MaggieL
At least one comittee member disagrees, and the chairman was either speaking for himself, or violating Comittee rules by taking part in public debates after the award is announced. .
...
Another member of the prize committee, Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, challenged Mr. Berge's observations. "The way I see it, that was not the intention of the committee," she said in an interview with NRK radio...

A conservative member of the five person board not only disagreed with Mr Berge's comments. That person had also nominated Tony Blair and George Jr for the Peace Prize! George Jr for the Nobel Peace Prize? Of course that person would perfer not to agree with the committee majority or with Mr Berge's explicit statement. That person, as a supporter of George Jr, was in direct contradicition with the majority Nobel Peace Prize committee.

The committee's announcement began: "In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Mr. Carter. . ."

Nobel Peace Prize is about politics. It is why the five member board is chosen by the Norwegian Parliament. It is why the committee selected a reporter who had exposed Hitler's military rearment and was jailed in a concentration camp for same. (The committee also prefaced his award with "This is for a journalist who opposed militarism.") It is why Desmond Tutu was selected during the turmoil of S Africa in 1984. Why Lech Walesa was selected in 1983 making the communist goverment in Poland very unhappy.

The committee made a clear statement about the militarism of George Jr. A conservative who nominated George Jr for the peace prize disagrees. Of course. How could one agree with the committee's conclusion after having nominated a militarist for the prize? The committee's comment should be a wakeup call to those who have not notice how badly George Jr has undermined America's relationships with virtually every nation in the world.

Amazing since he may not even have know half those nations existed when he was running for president.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by tw
A conservative member of the five person board not only disagreed with Mr Berge's comments...

Ah! They should be ignored then, they obviously don't count. Seems to me that "threats of the use of power" are coming from more than one place these days.

[tw]

Originally posted by MaggieL
Ah! They should be ignored then, they obviously don't count. Seems to me that "threats of the use of power" are coming from more than one place these days.

There is always someone threatening or actively using power. For example, few understood or even knew of the the war fought between Cubans and S Africian troops. Not since VietNam has a US president unilaterally decided to promote massive new wars when not attacked or threatened or in the protection of allies. Where are these other relevant "threats of the use of power" coming from - that are so notably different from previous decades?

The Nobel committee was so appaulled at this president as to issue an extraordinary statement - even though some on that committee would even nominate Geroge Jr and Tony Blair for the peace prize. Of course, maybe the committee made that statement, in part, because George and Tony were nominated. The majority were that appauled at those conservative militaristic attitudes even on their own committee.

Either way, George Jr earned condemnation from the Nobel committee for his wholesale encouragement of 'peace destruction' be it in Korean negotiations, Iraq, the Oslo Accords, the undermining of a struggling, democratically elected government in Iran, outright snubbing of the UN because it will not cowtow to his agenda, etc.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by tw
Where are these other relevant "threats of the use of power" coming from

I was thinking of the various islamist jihads being prosecuted worldwide...I won't bother to mention Iraq; you've been so focused on Bush-bashing that you won't belive they're a threat until there's a mushrooom-shaped smoking gun.

...outright snubbing of the UN because it will not cowtow to his agenda, etc.

Oh, dear! He "snubbed the UN outright", did he? I'm shocked. Considerig how nice everybody there has been to us.

What a load of crap.

He *came to the UN* and told them that he considered it to be critical to confront the continued Iraqui contempt and duplicity about the WMD inspections and challeneged them to do something about it--while indicating that he was prepared to act unilaterally.

Hussein *loves* playing the diplomatic game. It never fails to leave him free to do exactly what he wants, while always providing ample time to do it. Perhaps you're satisfied to wait until there's a sick old gangster deep in one of his German-built bombshelters lovingly topped with civilians, deciding he might as well go out with a bang.

[hermit22]

Hmm...so....by saying he would ignore the intentions of the UN and act unilaterally about a threat that many of his own most knowledgable employees don't find very threatening (check Tenet, check Zinni), he's not snubbing the UN or their intentions?

[tw]

Originally posted by MaggieL
Oh, dear! He "snubbed the UN outright", did he? I'm shocked. Considerig how nice everybody there has been to us.

What a load of crap.

He *came to the UN* and told them that he considered it to be critical to confront the continued Iraqui contempt and duplicity about the WMD inspections and challeneged them to do something about it--while indicating that he was prepared to act unilaterally.

The world has been good to America when US leadership was intelligent - and first listened.

When the US had responsible leaders, then Americans were well treated internationally. A naive Ronald Reagan (he listened instead to Oliver North) made Lebanon dangerous for Americans - when previously Americans could walk among most combatants in relative safety. Reagan wanted the US to be the world's policeman. That makes the world unfriendly and unsafe for Americans.

The UN gave Bill Clinton a 5 minute standing ovation - because he bothered to listen instead of telling the world what they must do. Clinton did not force America on the world. However George Jr, who had every oppurtunity to prove himself, instead started right off by telling the world how to act AND trying to make America THE world's policemen. Bush started by alienating the German Chancellor, underming the Oslo Accords, and continued to undermine America's relations with most every nation in the world. Deny that. Deny that Bush has undermined America's relations with virtually everyone. His 'axis of evil' are nations that are not a new or direct threat to the US. Irrelavant to George Jr. Only a world's policeman would advoate such militarism and unilateral attacks - in the tradition of Tojo.

George Jr's administration need not first listen. They already knew what is good for the world - including the adhoc policy of doing everything different from Clinton. No other President since Nixon has ever earned so much international despair because no other president since Nixon has been so wrongheaded - so unwilling to first learn. Learn? Why bother. He did not even do that in school.

Anyone with basic world knowledge could see that Iraq was not a threat to the US. Only if Saddam is a crazy man, can one then say he would attack the US. Saddam has a clear, sadistic objective that includes staying well clear of the US. He made a mistake in Kuwait because he thought annexation would happen without US intervention. We all but told him same. Clearly Saddam would not make the same mistake twice. Therefore he has absolutely no intention of threatening the US. This point is not even debatable - except in the right wing 'we fear everyone' George Jr administration. Even there, no concenus exists - that Saddam is a threat - as Sen Graham so shrewdly exposed.

Saddam is a threat to his neighbors - not to the US. Even his rumored weapons of mass destruction are designed for use on neighbors - not on the US. Only the fearful or the naive would think Saddam wants to attack the US. Curious. They also fear naked statues.

George Jr wants to protect Saddam's neighbors from Saddam - even if those nations don't want protection. Historically that has always been a prescription for failure. Protecting another nation that does not want protection will only make the US into "Ugly Americans" - as defined by the best selling book. But then George Jr is as versed in history's lessons as he was in school and business. History? Why should he learn history when he has a political agenda? That same mindset is what made both Nixon and Johnson such poor presidents.

George Jr originally intended to demand the UN endorse his ultimatum. Fortunately, cooler heads in his adminstration prevailed. At the last minute he backed off. He only insisted that the UN require new inspections in Iraq. He avoided any direct threat of unilateral action. These cooler heads (probably from the State Dept) saved America's closest allies from major international embarrassment - a direct confrontation over international policy. America's closest allies are marking time - trying to outlast George Jr. George Jr earns an adverse opinion. George Jr is a dangerous president presently only held in line by the contradictory opinions of almost every close ally. Thank goodness for American allies who are acting more in America's interests than our current American president.

But then anyone who thinks Iraq is a threat to the US simply 1) does not understand Saddam's quite clear objectives, 2) did not learn the capabilities of those hypothetical WMD, 3) has not learned the repeated lessons of history, and 4) must be so militant as to "yes man" this right wing extremist US president.

Various "threats of use of power" from jihads are really nothing more than a serious and organized civil unrest. It is not a war - except if one has a militaristic perspective. Same actions in Phillippines, Cambodia, Korea, Georgia, the many Kazans, Tibet and Nepal, all through Africa, in Italy and Spain, or in Central America were only insurrections - not international wars. These jihads are organized civil unrest. If only America would stop listening to a 'we fear everywhere' administration who at one point was warning of a new, mythical attack every week. The current American president has hyped this stuff up with his militaristic rhetoric and his totalitarian expressions such as "Homeland Security".

There are no terrorists hiding under every rock as there weren't ten years ago. Therefore I asked, "Where are these other relevant "threats of the use of power" coming from". If we eliminate George Jr's militaristic attitudes, then we are under less threat today than we were in 1995. It is safer to fly in a commercial airliner today than it was throughout the entire 1990s. So where are these threats? Only from organized civil unrest in rare, but over publicized events. International terrorism only looks bigger today because, previously, Liza Thomas Laurie and the local gossip never bothered to report it. You would think the sharks have suddenly started feasting on human flesh when in reality, the number of shark attacks on humans had decreased. Terrorism is less today.

The biggest threat to US security is to force itself upon the world as the "world's policeman". Previously that attitude made Americans into "Ugly Americans". When US presidents first listened to the world, then US presidents were some of the world's most popular people. Listening is why DeGaul personally walked the entire Kennedy funeral procession. His point was bluntly specific. Kennedy listened and earned highest praise even from the most obstinate Charles DeGaul. When Kennedy was shot, people were openly crying in the streets of Tokyo, Paris, and Santiago - because America was that highly regarded. America that led by listening has always been the world's most honored people. Only one without international perspective, such as George Jr, would advocate such contempt for the UN and other nations. It is not Saddam or the UN that is a threat to world peace. World peace is threatened by George Jr.'s militant demeanor created by blind allegiance to political doctrine and no interest in first listening.

The Economist of 5 Sept 2002 summarized George Jr's critics: [QUOTE}
that he is wrong to link the war on terrorism to the problem of rogue states; that he is allowing the question of Iraq to distract him from the more pressing issue of al-Qaeda; that he has backed Israel too unconditionally; that he is squandering international support and weakening an international coalition because of neoconservative blood lust.[/quote]

When Saddam's neighbors finally decide Saddam is a threat, then Saddam will get his just due by a world lead by the US. However if George Jr decides to unilaterally confront Saddam now that he is not a threat to anyone, then the world is unsafe for every American and every American ally.

Only the naive would think Saddam has any intention of unilaterally attacking the US. It is George Jr's policy - to get the naive to promote Iraq as a threat to the US. Easy to do among those most militant Americans just iching for another war. Hard to do among peple who first learn about the world - the listeners. But then George Jr knows everything he need know about the world from his political agenda. First listen? Nonsense. This is America. We already know what is best for the world.

[hermit22]

George Jr. was actually opposed to being the world's policeman. He criticized Clinton for that constantly on the campaign trail. He took a much more isolationist approach to world affairs and military commital. 9/11 brought back fond memories of playing with toy soldiers for all the neo-cons, and suddenly they were hawks.