OILING THE NOBEL PROCESS
Two weeks ago: The Norwegian Nobel Committee awards the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize to former president Jimmy Carter--a move the committee's chairman, Gunnar Berge, says "should be interpreted" as a "kick in the leg" to current President George W. Bush's "belligerent" foreign policy. Carter's Nobel citation reads: "In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international co-operation based on international law, respect for human rights, and economic development."
Last week: The United States announces that North Korea has acknowledged systematic violations of a Jimmy Carter-brokered 1994 pact by which that country was to have halted its nuclear weapons program in return for generous U.S. and South Korean economic assistance. American officials say North Korea may already have produced, under cover of that agreement, a workable, deliverable atomic bomb or two, a development that gravely threatens regional stability and security. Put more bluntly: It now appears that an unprecedented nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula has been facilitated, not averted, by Carter's 1994 "peace" negotiations.
The foregoing paragraphs, THE SCRAPBOOK says, "should be interpreted" as a "kick in the leg" to the Norwegian Nobel Committee generally. And the paragraphs that follow "might be considered" an additional "poke in the eye" to committee chairman Gunnar Berge individually.
We note that Norway--surprise!--is the world's third largest oil exporter. We note that Norway's non-oil economy slipped into recession in the second quarter of
this year. We note that the Norwegian government forecasts rising unemployment and only modest total GDP growth from now through the end of 2004. We note that even these not-especially-cheerful forecasts depend for their fulfillment on world oil prices remaining at current levels.
We further note that an American-led "regime change" and subsequent reconstruction of Iraq would inevitably and significantly transform the current global petroleum market: In a post-Saddam Iraq, the United States (and our genuine allies) would surely help modernize that country's oil fields and exploration capabilities. We note, in other words, that President George W. Bush's "belligerent" foreign policy promises sharply to boost future Iraqi oil production, which will depress world oil prices, which will leave the Norwegian economy . . . well, totally screwed.
And we note, finally, that the director general of his government's policy-making Norwegian Petroleum Directorate is none other than Nobel Peace Prize committee chairman, and Bush critic, Gunnar Berge.
Kinda puts the phrase "oil for peace" in a whole 'nother light, doesn't it?
LANDSLIDE SADDAM
Almost since the inception of this magazine, we have advocated, loudly and lustily, regime change in Iraq. This is not because we are a bunch of power-mad imperialists, though we are. It is because we genuinely believe that the time has come for the Iraqi people to enjoy the same freedoms Western people do--freedoms of association and of speech, the freedom to eat fast food, drive fast cars, and to not get beheaded for telling Saddam jokes.
We have always believed this is what the Iraqi people want as well. But, boy, are we embarrassed. Iraq held an election this week, and it turns out that the Iraqi people think the Butcher of Baghdad is just the bee's knees. With almost 100 percent voter turnout, Saddam Hussein, who was running unopposed, won the election 11,445,638 to 0. No muss, no fuss, no hanging chads, no Frank Lautenberg interventions, no libertarian write-ins.
Val:Y
|
