Jewish World Review Oct. 17, 2002 / 11 Mar-Cheshvan, 5763
Jimma's ignoble prize
As a patriot and a man of honor, Jimmy Carter should refuse the
Nobel Peace Prize. Such an act of integrity would win him more respect
and admiration from his countrymen than anything he has done since he
left the White House in 1981.
The Nobel Peace Prize committee has sometimes shown disturbingly bad
judgment -- above all in 1994, when it bestowed the prize on an
unrepentant Yasser Arafat -- but never before has it awarded the peace
prize with the explicit purpose of castigating the United States. That
new low was achieved last week, when Nobel Committee Chairman Gunnar
Berge emphasized that the award was meant as a denunciation of American
policy toward Iraq.
"It should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the
current administration has taken," Berge said. "It's a kick in the leg
to all that follow the same line as the United States."
Gunnar Staalsett, another committee member, confirmed that the award
was intended as a condemnation of US policy. But surely that was
obvious to anyone who read the citation: "In a situation currently
marked by threats of the use of power," it said, "Carter has stood by
the principle that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through
mediation and international cooperation." Remarked the Nobel Committee
secretary: "There can't be much doubt about the intention of that."
No, there can't: A smug little group of Norwegian politicians chose
Carter for the Nobel Peace Prize in order to take a slap at a superpower
willing to go to war, if necessary, to depose a vicious tyrant. Carter
should be livid at this attempt to use him to discredit his country and
embarrass President Bush. To show that he cares more for the honor of
the United States than for personal glory, he ought to turn the prize
But he won't. There are many things of which Carter disapproves,
but slaps at the United States and digs at other presidents are not
among them. On the contrary, they are something of a Carter specialty.
Consider, for example, his first meeting with Arafat in 1990, an
event described by historian Douglas Brinkley in his admiring biography
of Carter, The Unfinished Presidency.
"There was no world leader Jimmy Carter was more eager to know,"
Brinkley wrote. Carter "felt certain affinities with the Palestinian"
and seemed to want badly for that affinity to be reciprocated. When
Arafat complained about the "betrayals" of the Reagan administration,
Rosalyn Carter (who was taking notes on the meeting), exclaimed, "You
don't have to convince us!" This, Brinkley reported, "elicited gales of
laughter all around." Carter sympathetically "agreed that the Reagan
administration was not renowned as promise keepers."
It is safe to say that Ronald Reagan would never have attempted to
curry favor with an odious terrorist by mocking and deriding his
successor. Or, for that matter, his predecessor.
Bad enough that Carter would run down another president in a private
conversation with the head of the PLO. Worse was his behavior last May,
when he went to Cuba and openly implied that the US government was
A few days before Carter's trip, Undersecretary of State John Bolton
had warned of Cuban involvement in developing biological weapons. "The
United States believes that Cuba has at least a limited offensive
biological warfare research and development effort," he said, and "has
provided dual-use biotechnology to other rogue states."
But during a visit to a Cuban biotech facility, Carter claimed that
US briefers had repeatedly assured him that there was no evidence of
Cuba's doing any such thing. Secretary of State Colin Powell reiterated
Bolton's warning and said that Carter was mistaken, but the damage had
been done: To lend support to Castro's dictatorship, Carter had
purposely undermined US policy and labeled the administration dishonest.
Yet even that isn't the worst instance of Carter's willingness to
undercut his successors.
During the runup to the Gulf War in 1990, in what even Brinkley
calls "the low moment" of his post-presidency, Carter actively tried to
sabotage President George H.W. Bush's efforts to win UN Security Council
approval for armed action to liberate Kuwait. Without notifying Bush,
Carter wrote to the heads of state of each member of the Security
Council, urging them to vote against the US-drafted resolution.
"In his letter," Brinkley discovered, "Carter urged these
influential world leaders to abandon US leadership and instead give
'unequivocal support to an Arab League effort' " to link the Iraqi
conquest of Kuwait with the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Lobbying
foreign governments to subvert the diplomatic efforts of a sitting
president is something ex-presidents simply do not do. But Carter not
only did it, he (later) even boasted of it.
Lately, the former president has been harshly denouncing the current
president's policy toward Iraq. America is in no danger from Baghdad,
he declares, and war talk from the administration's "belligerent and
divisive voices" must be resisted. Naturally he has no intention of
muffling his own belligerent and divisive voice. But then, why would
he? It has just won him a Nobel Prize -- which he fully intends to
Like this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Jeff Jacoby is a Boston Globe columnist. Comment by clicking here.
10/14/02: New Jersey's bigot laureate
10/11/02: Today it is libs who are most likely to demand the silencing of speech they disapprove of
10/04/02: Learning English from Day 1
09/30/02: The world will follow us to war
09/27/02: The face of antisemitism
09/20/02: Starving time in Zimbabwe
09/14/02: Against moral confusion / 9-12-2002
09/03/02: With 'eternal friends' like these
08/30/02: Enriching survivors was a costly mistake
08/26/02: John Kerry's absent passion
08/23/02: Bonnie, get your gun
08/19/02: A screenwriter's remorse
07/29/02: The real abortion extremists
07/26/02: Another round of Kemp-Roth
07/19/02: Jews among Arabs, Arabs among Jews
07/15/02: Musings, random and otherwise
07/12/02: The new civil rights champions
07/03/02: Riding the rails
07/01/02: The prerequisite to peace
06/24/02: Frisking AlGore
06/17/02: Offense, not defense, is the key to homeland security
06/14/02: Looking at the horror
06/07/02: The cost of a death-penalty moratorium
06/03/02: Executing 'children,' and other death-penalty myths
05/29/02: A real threat?
05/24/02: The message in Arafat's headdress
05/20/02: (Mis)playing the popularity card
05/10/02: Outspoken, Muslim -- and moderate
05/10/02: The heroes in Castro's jails
05/06/02: The disappearing history term paper
05/03/02: Musings, random and otherwise
04/29/02: The canary in Europe's mine
04/15/02: Powell's crazy mission
04/12/02: The slavery reparations hustle
04/08/02: Peace at any price = war
03/26/02: Decency matters most, Caleb
03/22/02: The U.S. embargo and Cuba's future
03/19/02: The keepers of Cuba's conscience
03/15/02: A walk in Havana
02/26/02: Buchanan's lament
02/12/02: What 'peace' means to Arafat
02/08/02: STEVEN EMERSON AND THE NPR BLACKLIST
02/05/02: Antismoking: Who pays?
02/01/02: Turn the Saudis
01/25/02: Making MLK cry
01/21/02: Ted to tax cut: Drop dead
01/18/02: Musings random and otherwise
01/14/02: An ultimatum to Saudi Arabia
01/11/02: Friendship, Saudi-style
01/07/02: Shakedown at Harvard
01/04/02: More guns, more safety
01/02/02: Smears and slanders from the Left
12/28/01: Congress gives to others -- and itself
12/24/01: The littlest peacemakers
12/20/01: How to condemn terror
12/18/01: Greenland once was
12/14/01: Parents who never said ''no''
12/11/01: Wit and (economic) wisdom
12/07/01: THE PALESTINIANS' MYTH
12/04/01: The war against Israel goes on
11/30/01: Tribunals, motorcycles -- and freedom
11/19/01: Friendship and the House of Saud
11/12/01: The Justice Department's unjust monopoly
11/09/01: Muslim, but not extremist
11/02/01: Too good for Oprah
10/29/01: Journalism and the 'neutrality fetish'
10/26/01: Derail these subsidies
10/22/01: Good and evil in the New York Times
10/15/01: Rush Limbaugh's ear
10/08/01: With allies like these
10/01/01: An unpardonable act
09/28/01: THE CENSORS ARE COMING! THE CENSORS ARE COMING!
09/25/01: Speaking out against terror
09/21/01: What the terrorists saw
09/17/01: Calling evil by its name
09/13/01: Our enemies mean what they say
09/04/01: The real bigots
08/31/01: Shrugging at genocide
08/28/01: Big Brother's privacy -- or ours?
08/24/01: The mufti's message of hate
08/21/01: Remembering the 'Wall of Shame'
08/16/01: If I were the editor ...
08/14/01: If I were the Transportation Czar ...
08/10/01: Import quotas 'steel' from us all
08/07/01: Is gay "marriage" a threat?
08/03/01: A colorblind nominee
07/27/01: Eminent-domain tortures
07/24/01: On protecting the flag ... and drivers ... and immigrants
07/20/01: Dying for better mileage
07/17/01: Why Americans would rather drive
07/13/01: Do these cabbies look like bigots?
07/10/01: 'Defeated in the bedroom'
07/06/01: Who's white? Who's Hispanic? Who cares?
07/02/01: Big(oted) man on campus
06/29/01: Still appeasing China's dictators
06/21/01: Cuban liberty: A test for Bush
06/19/01: The feeble 'arguments' against capital punishment
06/12/01: What energy crisis?
06/08/01: A jewel in the crown of self-government
05/31/01: The settlement myth
05/25/01: An award JFK would have liked
05/22/01: No Internet taxes? No problem
05/18/01: Heather has five mommies (and a daddy)
05/15/01: An execution, not a lynching
05/11/01: Losing the common tongue
05/08/01: Olympics 2008: Say no to Beijing
05/04/01: Do welfare mothers a kindness: Make them work
05/01/01: Another man's child
04/24/01: Sharon should have said no
04/02/01: The Inhumane Society
03/30/01: To have a friend, Caleb, be a friend
03/27/01: Is Chief Wahoo racist?
03/22/01: Ending the Clinton appeasement
03/20/01: They're coming for you
03/16/01: Kennedy v. Kennedy
03/13/01: We should see McVeigh die
03/09/01: The Taliban's wrecking job
03/07/01: The No. 1 reason to cut taxes
03/02/01: A Harvard candidate's silence on free speech
02/27/01: A lesson from Birmingham jail
02/20/01: How Jimmy Carter got his good name back
02/15/01: Cashing in on the presidency
02/09/01: The debt for slavery -- and for freedom
02/06/01: The reparations calculation
02/01/01: The freedom not to say 'amen'
01/29/01: Chavez's 'hypocrisy': Take a closer look
01/26/01: Good-bye, good riddance
01/23/01: When everything changed (mostly for the better)
01/19/01: The real zealots
01/16/01: Pardon Clinton?
01/11/01: The fanaticism of Linda Chavez
01/09/01: When Jerusalem was divided
01/05/01 THEY NEVER FORGOT THEE, O JERUSALEM
12/29/00 Liberal hate speech, 2000
12/15/00Does the Constitution expect poor children be condemned to lousy government schools?
12/08/00 Powell is wrong man to run State Department
12/05/00 The 'MCAS' teens give each other
12/01/00 Turning his back on the Vietnamese -- again
11/23/00 Why were the Pilgrims thankful?
11/21/00 The fruit of this 'peace process' is war
11/13/00 Unleashing the lawyers
11/17/00 Gore's mark on history
40 reasons to say NO to Gore
© 2002, Boston Globe