Yesterday, I derided the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the International Atomic Energy Agency. In the ocmments, one reader questioned just who I thought might deserve the prize. So I started thinking.
The general requirements seem to be to have a certain level of international prominence and a few public actions in the direction of “peace.” Previous conduct seems irrelevant (see Henry Kissinger, Yassir Arafat, Menachem Begin, and Anwar Sadat), just their more recent accomplishments.
With that in mind, a nominee comes to mind.
This candidate has done a great deal. He has freed an entire nation from a brutal dictatorship, and helped them achieve freedom for the first time in their history. He has removed another dictator, and is working hard towards helping that nation’s people establish themselves as a free state. He has persuaded a third nation to not only acknowledge its previously-unknown research program into nuclear weapons, but to publicly abandon them and turn them over to another nation (an established nuclear power) for safe disposal. He has worked closely with India and Pakistan, the two newest members of the nuclear club, establishing close ties of friendship with both and helped them step away from their traditional hatred into a safe detente.
So I say that President George W. Bush certainly seems as much a contender as Mr. AlBaradei and the IAEA, and certainly far more deserving than past recipients such as Henry Kissinger or (spit) Yassir Arafat.