President Bush and British Prime Minister Blair are among the173 candidates nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize this year. TheNobel Peace Prize is usually awarded to candidates who have,through their efforts, displayed incredible leadership qualitiesand have devoted their lives to preserving peace and harmony forthe betterment of the world.

How is it President Bush and Prime Minister made it to thislist, you ask?

 

According to Norwegian politician Jan Simonsen of the Party ofProgress, the Republican Party equivalent of Norway, Bush and Blairhave, for several years, been deserving of this award.

 

The Associated Press says Simonsen has nominated these twocandidates for several years, including this year. He believes thatby removing Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, they narrowed the chanceof a war using weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East andlaid the foundation for the development of democracy.

In an interview with Reuters, Simonsen supported his nominationsby saying, “Even though they haven’t found those weapons they gotrid of a dictator and made the world [safer].”

 

First of all, the American nation was led into this war underfalse pretenses. There was-and still is-no evidence leading to thebelief that these weapons ever existed. His leadership credibilityhas long expired.

Even his advisor on matters of National Security, CondoleezaRice, once admitted some pre-war intelligence was flawed.

By making such false claims President Bush underestimated theaptitude of the American people.

The Associated Press says, “Norwegian experts, including SteinToennesson, director of the Peace Research Institute-Oslo, lastyear gave Bush and Blair no chance of winning, mainly because avast majority of Norwegians, including members of the awardscommittee, were deeply opposed to the war in Iraq.”

Again, they may have made the list this year but that is noguarantee they’ll win the award. In fact, he may never graduatefrom being a nominee of this prestigious award at all.

The Norwegian committee, although appointed by the Norwegianparliament, does not answer to the parliament. It independentlyselects its winner based on each candidate’s merits, altruistic andbenevolent acts toward the struggle for peace in the world.

In 2002, the committee voted to give the award to ex-USPresident Jimmy Carter for his argument against war. Also, the headof the Nobel committee was quoted calling the choice a “kick in thelegs” to Bush on Iraq.

Included in the list of nominees are Pope John Paul II, theSalvation Army, South African Adurrazack Achmat and the TreatmentAction Campaign for their work fighting HIV/AIDS, the InternationalSolidarity Movement, a pro-Palestinian activist group, Russiananti-war group Mothers in Black, and Italian charity The Communityof Sant’ Egidio.

These are people who truly deserve being nominated for an awardof this caliber. These are people who are constantly on thelook-out for the nourishment of the world, not people who are in anever-ending high for power.

Committee Secretary Geir Lundestad says it is very easy to benominated for this award, but winning is where the challengeis.

He also said thousands of people, including members of anynational legislature or government and many university professors,have nomination rights, so being proposed for the prize is nodistinction in itself.

The committee says they have received thousands of e-mails frompeople objecting to the nomination of Bush and Blair.

The absurdity of the nomination of these two candidates is trulydisturbing. What we have to remember, as the world community, isthat starting a war to end another is indeed no means to reachpeace.

The answer to this lies in the definition of the worditself.

 

According to Merriam-Webster peace is “a pact or agreement toend hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state ofenmity.”

 

However, Oxford English Dictionary defines peace as “freedomfrom, or cessation of, war or hostilities; that condition of anation or community in which it is not at war with another.”

Given these two definitions, it is then plausible to claim thatPresident Bush and Prime Minister Blair are not likely to win thisaward for their means to achieve harmony were in directcontradiction with the universal definition of peace.