It’s time to create an international award for those who really bring peace.
It’s time for the Reagan Peace Prize.
Actually, it’s past time.
The Nobel Peace Prize for President Obama — for which he was nominated after barely two weeks in office — merely illustrates once again what has been apparent for not just the last few years but at least ninety years. The Nobel, the legacy of Alfred Nobel, the Swedish inventor of dynamite, has become essentially worthless, a charade for left-wing Norwegian politicians to award like-minded liberals and liberalism under the guise that the award in some objective fashion determines an individual’s contributions to peace.
It’s easy to cite the current story. Obama, today, Al Gore yesterday, Jimmy Carter the day before that and surely Bill Clinton and Hillary some day to come. Reagan? Thatcher? Pope John Paul II? George W. Bush? Of course not.
But there’s more here, much more, which bespeaks the need for a Reagan Peace Prize.
The Nobel is not a fake — although it risks the charge in the sense that it presents itself as something it is not. Which is to say, an objective “but of course!” selection of an individual or group that has actually secured peace or at least advanced the cause. The Nobel is quite genuine — it is an award for leftists, for leftism and a leftist worldview of what peace is and how that peace is achieved. Not to be lost in the commotion here is that the decision to give the award to Obama was made by a group of Norwegian parliamentarians dominated by socialists.
The real question that needs to be asked is: Has the Nobel Peace Prize summoned forth those who have actually produced peace? Has the liberal-left wing view of how to achieve peace, as practically enacted by various Nobel Peace Prize winners, worked as advertised? The answer, overwhelmingly (they did manage a nod to Polish anti-Communist crusader Lech Walesa), is an embarrassingly emphatic no. Let’s take a look at some of the more stellar if now conveniently forgotten examples.
On September 1, 1939, World War II exploded , with the Germans invading Poland. The entire story of this global horror than unfolds over the course of the next six murderous years, the conclusion of which in turn bequeathed the next six decades of the nuclear-tipped Cold War.
Where were the Nobel Peace Prize winners chosen by Norwegians in the run-up to all of this? How did the world ever find itself in this ghastly situation in the first place if the Prize winners were so effective at what they were doing? Who were these recipients, what did they do that won them the prize — and most importantly, why didn’t they succeed?
Here are some of them.
• 1919, Woodrow Wilson — Wilson, the sitting President of the United States at the time he received his prize, is without doubt the most famous recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in the period that followed World War I and leading up to World War II. He won the prize, according to the Nobel Committee, for his work on the Treaty of Versailles, specifically including the League of Nations. What happened with all of this? The Treaty of Versailles failed, its signature accomplishment to blame World War I on the Germans (the so-called “War Guilt” clauses) and demand crippling financial reparations along with territorial concessions. The Treaty’s real success was in laying the groundwork for the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Likewise the League of Nations proved an embarrassing failure, Wilson completely unable to negotiate America’s role in the League with the U.S. Senate.
Nobel Winner Failure: Wilson won his prize for a series of liberal foreign policies that directly set the world on the path to World War II and the Holocaust. Wilson’s peace strategy, rewarded by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, failed.
• 1925, Austen Chamberlain — Chamberlain was the British Foreign Secretary and half-brother to Neville Chamberlain, who years later would become the British Prime Minister famously advocating appeasement with Hitler. Austen Chamberlain won his Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating what is known to history as the Locarno Pact in 1925. The Locarno Pact, said Austen Chamberlain, was “the beginning, and not the end, of the noble work of appeasement in Europe.” The Nobel Prize Committee agreed, and awarded Chamberlain the Peace Prize for an agreement that opened the door
Nobel Winner Failure: The Locarno Pact, hailed by liberals of the day, caved in to the German demand to leave its eastern border open for revision, humiliating Poland and setting up an inevitable German invasion — which finally came in 1939. As Austen Chamberlain noted, it was a deliberate act of appeasement. Sniffed he: “No British government would ever risk the bones of a single British grenadier for the Polish corridor.” Chamberlain’s appeasement pushed Europe and the world further down the path to war. Austen Chamberlain’s worldview, rewarded enthusiastically by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, failed.
• 1929, Frank B. Kellogg — American Secretary of State for President Calvin Coolidge. Kellogg won the award for the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Briand was Aristide Briand, the French Foreign minister who had already won his Nobel Peace Prize in 1926 for his role in negotiating the Locarno Pact, the treaty that won the 1925 award for Austen Chamberlain. Kellogg-Briand, signed in 1928, was perhaps the most fatuous example of liberal foreign policy concepts abroad in the world. It banned war as “an instrument of national policy.” Sixty-three nations signed this treaty, including Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union along with the United States, Britain, and France.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?